The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Leicester on Monday 19 April? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

House of Lords: Select Committee Reports

The Countess of Mar: asked the Leader of the House:
	How she will ensure that adequate and suitable time is made available for the House to debate Select Committee reports.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the usual channels do their best to offer time to committees, but it is partly in the hands of the committee chairmen. If chairmen want prime time, it will require flexibility. This Session, prime time was offered to committees that no chairman took up.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for her reply, but I am a little disappointed by it. I understand that the usual channels are responsible for making arrangements for debates to take place at convenient times, but I had not appreciated that the chairmen of committees were also involved in agreeing the time.
	Given that scrutiny cannot be lifted until after a debate in your Lordships' House—particularly with regard to the European Union sub-committees—will the noble Baroness use her good offices to prevail on the usual channels and the chairmen of committees, if it comes to that, to make sure that the debates are held in good time, so that scrutiny can be lifted and Ministers can go to the European Council and deal with matters appropriately?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I recognise the concerns that are being expressed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I know that the noble Countess recognises that there is no such thing as government time in this House. Everything is done by agreement and, of course, in consultation with the relevant chairmen of the committees. It requires flexibility. Of course, I will use my good offices with the usual channels, but we also require the chairmen of committees to be flexible.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does the Lord President of the Council agree that it is extremely satisfactory that important reports from the committees and sub-committees—I declare an interest as a member of Sub-Committee D—are never reported in the House? One of the consequences is that some of the responses from government departments are wholly inadequate. A recent response from Defra to Sub-Committee D is an example. Would not government departments take the reports more seriously if they had to defend their position in the House?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my understanding is that the Government agree to respond to committee reports within a reasonable time. There have been occasions on which those responses have been late but, once the responses are received, there is an agreed debate in which Ministers will defend the Government's position. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord that there is no opportunity for the view of the committee to be put and for the Government to respond on the Floor of the House.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, unless things have changed in the past two or three years, the first Answer that the noble Baroness gave is not entirely accurate. The chairmen of committees can hardly be blamed for the fact that the Government Whips' Office can never find enough time for such matters. I know that the Government have a heavy programme, but Select Committee reports get squeezed into the gaps between government business. The Government are not in control of all the business but, for all practical purposes, they are.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there may be some confusion. I am speaking about the chairman of the committee whose report is to be debated. Recently, for example, a five-hour prime time slot was offered to committees and was not taken up.

Lord Peston: My Lords, the Economic Affairs Committee has just had a response from the Government. My noble friend the Chief Whip is looking far too happy on the Front Bench: I have just written him a letter saying that I must have a debate right this minute and lasting at least five hours. As my noble friend knows, I am the most flexible and reasonable of chairmen.
	I am not sure that this is an easy problem to solve. We do not debate the reports until the Government produce a response. One of the problems with the subsequent debate is that the Government, having produced a response, feel that they must stick to their response, rather than listening to the voice of the House and saying, "Maybe the committee was right". It is not clear what we should do. Does my noble friend agree that we ought to find a way of not allowing the Government to get entrenched in a position in which they find it impossible to be sympathetic to the views of the House?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend recognises that this is a caring, friendly, flexible Government.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, was not the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, right in saying that the Government must bear more responsibility for this? Is it not also true that in the first two Sessions of the Labour Government all but four of the published Select Committee reports were debated? However, by the end of the Session last year 13 were left undebated and already in this Session seven are awaiting debate, three of them from before the Summer Recess.
	Under the experimental procedures that we are currently undertaking, there was an agreement that if more Bills were debated in Grand Committee, there would be more time on the Floor of the House for this sort of prime-time debate. There were a record number of Grand Committee sittings last Session and there are a record number this Session. Should not the Government start to fulfil their side of the bargain?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not think that we have a bad record on debates this Session. We have had two full days on Select Committee debates, plus two part-time, prime-time debates on Select Committee reports, with another one planned for 22 April. I am aware that if you look at the Minute, there can be a perception that some Select Committee reports have been waiting for a long time. But in at least one case, the committee does not want the report to be debated until it has done some further work.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, while I support the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I recognise the difficulties of the usual channels—and will probably recognise them even better in the future. Does the Minister agree that because many of these reports are very well seen outside the House, the possibility of more debates on the Floor of the House—and I understand the difficulties—would be good for the reputation of this House?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first let me congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. I look forward to working with him in his new role. The noble Lord is quite right that the work of the Select Committees in this House is taken very seriously. However, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the average number of speakers in this House on the debate of a Select Committee report is eight. We really need to look at the interest that is being generated around specific issues.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, is to be the new Convenor of the Cross Benches? A lot of people sitting around me do not know that.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, that was the reason why I congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Williamson.

Medicines and Foods: Interaction

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information is given to patients and carers to enable them to identify drug interactions and interaction between drugs and certain foods.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, all medicines must be accompanied by a patient information leaflet, which sets out any recorded interactions between the medicine prescribed and other medicines or foods. The Government are continuing vigorously to encourage manufacturers to provide clear and accessible information about their products to enable them to be used safely and correctly. In addition, a range of advice will be given to patients at the time of prescribing and dispensing.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for her Answer and give special thanks for her hard work. I declare a personal interest as my husband has had exceedingly complex and difficult problems. He is on warfarin, and his INR blood coagulation has gone over 10 twice. It is today very dangerous indeed. Is the noble Baroness aware that he was on antibiotics, which can result in problems, and also on grapefruit juice?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure that everyone will want to send their best wishes to the noble Baroness's husband for a speedy recovery.
	Warfarin is a powerful anti-coagulant; there are some known interactions with certain antibiotics. There is also a potential reaction with cranberry juice, which has come to light very recently, and doctors have been informed about it. But I can assure the noble Baroness that the patient information leaflet, which should be provided with every medicine prescribed, should give all information about known interactions, so the doctor involved should also be able to give that information.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the interaction of medicines and the administration of medication is particularly important in care homes? I am sure she will have noted the National Care Standards Commission's report, The Management of Medication in Care Services, which shows that out of 16,500 care homes, some 2,500, for children and for older people, are failing to meet those standards. What is the Government's response to that report?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord has drawn attention to a very important issue. We are very concerned that the National Care Standards Commission's report showed that so many care homes did not meet the standard. However, we were encouraged by the fact that the figures for this year are an improvement on last year. There is clearly room for improvement. We will be looking carefully at the recommendations and following them up as soon as possible, wherever possible.

Earl Howe: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to look at this issue as it affects mothers who are breastfeeding? Pharmaceutical companies are not currently required to provide information about the safety of drugs in lactation. The majority of newly developed medicines are labelled "not to be taken by breastfeeding women", not because they are necessarily unsafe but because there are no data to support such approvals. Will the Government encourage the pharmaceutical industry to collect data from GPs on this very important issue?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, it is important. My advice is that information on whether a drug passes into breast milk is included in the summary of product characteristics and the patient information leaflet, when it is known. Of course, the BNF—the British National Formulary—also contains detailed information on medicines that will be present in breast milk if the mother is treated. I undertake to write to the noble Earl with any other information that I have on the specific issues that he raised.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that should there be not only a list of potential foods that are dangerous when taking drugs but information about combining alcohol and drugs? In many cases, that can cause very bad side-effects, and in some cases it can be fatal.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Alcohol is a very powerful drug in itself and, when there is a known interaction with a particular medicine, that information should certainly be in the information leaflet. I remind noble Lords that the patient information leaflet is required by law to be provided with every medicine prescribed.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, we have had all the negative side of the question—and, of course, it is a very important matter. However, the effect of some drugs is enhanced by combining them with other drugs. We have all read, I am sure, about a marvellous pill that we shall be able to take: six different tablets a day will keep us alive for long enough to see this place out! When will we receive information about that magic pill, which has been talked about so widely?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have very extensive briefing, but I have absolutely nothing on this magic pill. I doubt very much that I shall live long enough, with the stress of this particular role, to see it. But I shall see what I can do and provide some further information.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the issue of the dearth of data referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, does my noble friend agree that it is a particular problem in relation to paediatric prescribing, and therefore the information that can be given in that regard? There has been a lack of non-therapeutic clinical trials for children, for understandable reasons, but has any progress been made on getting better information on prescribing for children?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, prescribing medicines for children has been constrained traditionally by ethical considerations. It has been a concern that we have not sometimes been able to provide appropriate medicines for children because of that. However, the UK is supporting a European proposal to set out a framework for requirements and incentives for research and development into appropriate medicines. That is a very important step forward. We expect to take a leading role in that.
	We are also developing our own national strategy. We want to encourage more paediatric research. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be as pleased as I was to see that one of the five areas that has been prioritised for additional funding for medical research in the next few years will be paediatric medicine. We aim to bring together the paediatric research centres to ensure faster progress. That, plus the national service framework for children, is very good news.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the information will be written in extremely simple language?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. The labelling of medicines is absolutely crucial. By law, labels are supposed to be understandable and readable. That should apply for everyone. We have had a report from the Committee on Safety of Medicines, which considered ways in which to provide clearer information, by colour-coding packages to distinguish between medicines, and so on. We are very alert to the issue and to involving patients more in the management of their own medicines. For that, they really do need a lot of information.

House of Lords: Legislative Conventions

The Earl of Onslow: asked the Leader of the House:
	Whether the House of Lords has broken any conventions between the two Houses of Parliament on the consideration of legislation over the past two Sessions; if so, on what occasions; and what were the conventions.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall focus on the most recent of many examples—the extended ping-pong on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. This House has refused to accept Commons amendments four times, despite the strong convention that the elected House gets its way in the end. That convention was recognised by the Opposition last Session, during ping-pong on foundation hospitals, and was indeed recognised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, when he said:
	"On something like this, eventually the Lords will give way. They must do".

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, normally one thanks the Minister for her reply.

Noble Lords: Always!

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, not always. On this occasion the Minister has not said what the convention is. She has invented it. She quite accurately quotes what I said on television, which I stand by, but the conventions as I understand them are this: the Salisbury convention, done in different circumstances. Are the Government now saying that when circumstances are different, they can continue to break the word of honour given by a Lord Chancellor on the grounds that there was a change of circumstances? Is that still a convention?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Earl has been in this House much longer than I have, and he will recognise—as, indeed, I did when I came into this House—that there are a number of conventions that are not written down anywhere. They are conventions that are understood, accepted and worked through between the two Houses; and, indeed, within this House. The first attempt to codify those conventions came in the Wakeham Commission report, which set out absolutely clearly the primacy of the House of Commons and the fact that the House of Commons should have its way.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that the prime role of this House is not only to scrutinise legislation from another place but also to protect the fundamental liberties and rights of citizens in our constitution? Does she further agree that, while we all recognise that at the end of the day the Parliament Act can be used to stress the basic superiority in terms of power of the Commons over the Lords, a very special responsibility rests on this House with regard to electoral matters, given that the majority in the House of Commons under almost all governments does not reflect a majority of the views of electors who elect that government?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have to say that I would be more ready to accept that if it were something that had come down historically over many years. There was no consensus when the party opposite was in government and abolished a whole tier of local government. On the basis set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, we certainly would not have had the Parliament Act; we certainly would not have had an extension of the franchise; and we certainly would not have had votes for women. The protection of fundamental liberties of the people of the United Kingdom, to which the noble Baroness has referred, is something that has gone against the grain in this House rather than with it with respect to some electoral matters.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can explain how she understands how the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, a Liberal life Peer, can argue that 10 Earls, seven Viscounts, one Duke, a Countess and 24 hereditary Barons can overturn the decision of 357 elected Members of the Commons? That decision was to give the people of the north-west of England and, in particular, the people of Cumbria, where I live, the right to an all-postal ballot. If that is within the convention, I think that it is about time we changed it.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is well aware that our party and the Government feel very strongly that the hereditary principle has no place in Parliament. We made that absolutely clear in our 1997 manifesto. On the specific point with regard to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, I share my noble friend's concern. The proposals that have been put before this House will increase the turnout; local pilots have demonstrated that there is around a 15 per cent increase in the turnout. All parties have an interest in ensuring that the electorate can vote and can do so in a variety of ways.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this Government have torn up more constitutional conventions than any government in the preceding century. Is it not a little rich to lecture Parliament that it must keep those conventions that suit the Government but must tear up those that do not? Speaking of conventions, should there not be a new convention that changes to electoral law should, at worst, be introduced only after wide public debate, should be supported by the Electoral Commission and, at best, should require cross-party support? All of these are sadly lacking in the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would take more notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said if I had not already made the point in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. These are conventions that the noble Lord's party took no notice of when it was in power. Indeed, I repeat the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in relation to the House of Lords Bill on reform, which will not now come before this House:
	"If the Bill is ever presented to this House, the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues can be assured that he can expect a major fight on his hands, and it will not be confined to this Bill".—[Official Report, 18/9/03; col. 1062.]
	If that is not breaking a convention, I do not know what is.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what percentage of votes were cast from those on the Benches behind her for the last series of ping-pong? Is she not aware that in no case did the Government achieve more than a 60 per cent turnout of their vote on the many amendments that they lost in the last Session?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is aware of the figures. This party carries some 28 per cent of the vote, as do the Cross-Benchers. The Conservative Party has some 31 per cent of the vote. Averaged over last Session, Labour got out 51 per cent of its vote, with the Liberal-Democrats achieving 45 per cent and the Conservatives 31 per cent.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness remember the case of Scottish tuition fees where ping-pong extended through five rounds? While this House may usually give way, does she understand that the moment that the Government are able to translate "usually" as "always", this House might as well pack up and go home?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, if that were the case under every government of whatever complexion the noble Earl would have a point. I draw his attention to the following quote:
	"When the Conservative Party is in power, there is practically no House of Lords: it takes whatever the Conservative Government brings it from the House of Commons without question or dispute; but the moment a Liberal Government is formed, this harmless body assumes an active life, and its activity is entirely exercised in opposition to the Government . . . It is in fact a permanent barrier raised against the Liberal Party".
	That was Lord Rosebery in 1894. What has changed?

Government Communications

Lord McNally: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who will have direct ministerial responsibility for the newly appointed Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Communications and where the post will be located.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, following an open competition, Howell James has been appointed to the post of Permanent Secretary, Government Communications. He will report through the Cabinet Secretary to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister. He will be located in the Cabinet Office.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Phillis committee, which set up this new arrangement in Whitehall, set out its objective as being to address the breakdown in the level of public trust in, and credibility of, government communications? It saw, as part of the answer, the restoration of the tradition of Civil Service impartiality as a key bulwark on which to build trust. Is he aware that the three men given major appointments under the new regime—the political appointment of Mr David Hill; the Permanent Secretary, Government Communications, Howell James; and the No. 10 spokesman, Tom Kelly—were all members of the Phillis committee, which gives it a good record in terms of job creation? Does he really think that this new structure, which now puts three spin doctors where one spin doctor operated before, addresses the central point of Phillis: that we have to restore the tradition of Civil Service impartiality to government communications, which was destroyed under Alastair Campbell.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought at first that the noble Lord approved of the findings of the Phillis committee. It is my view, and I thought that the noble Lord shared it, that the Phillis committee neatly defined the way in which responsibilities should be separated out, so that a Permanent Secretary for government communications has a different job from that of the director of communications who advises the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's official spokesperson. On the basis of that appointments experience and background, we have every confidence in the ability of the new Permanent Secretary to deliver high quality communications to high professional standards across the government information service.

Children: Attendance at School

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What lessons they have learnt from the repeated imprisonment of Patricia Amos for failing to prevent the truancy of her daughters from school.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot comment on a particular case. As with any prosecution, it is for the courts to decide on the appropriate sentence, having taken into account all the facts. However, we believe that parents must take responsibility for their children's attendance at school and prosecution can be an effective mechanism for securing attendance in the most intransigent cases.

Earl Russell: My Lords, are the Minister and those who brought the initial prosecution aware that Mrs Amos's daughter first got into the habit of staying away from school in order to check up surreptitiously whether her mother collapsed after the arrival of the heroin dealer? Does she regard this as responsible behaviour on the part of the daughter? Does she agree that a government who decide the penalty without considering the circumstances of the case is like a batsman who plays his shots with his eyes shut?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is for the courts to determine the penalties and not the Government. I shall make it absolutely clear to the noble Earl that, in the view of this Government, the attendance of children at school is critical for the life chances of those children. We believe that we should have at our disposal and at the courts' disposal the opportunity to ensure that that can happen.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister take this more widely? What is a parent supposed to do to constrict a teenage child? I speak as one who was a somewhat difficult teenager, whose parents suddenly discovered that when I was aged 14, and attempted to impose discipline, which was extremely foolish of them and could have resulted in serious problems. It is not a practical proposition. I do not understand what the Government expect parents to do.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I find it hard to envisage the noble Lord as a difficult teenager. It might give him some comfort to discover that I too was quite a difficult teenager. I accept that it is difficult to be a parent. I recognise that. We have discussed many times in your Lordships' House the array of different ways in which it is our responsibility to try to support parents when children are very young and as they grow up. We do have many opportunities to discuss that. At a previous Question Time, I referred to the fact that I had recently received a leaflet from my children's school, offering me, along with all other parents, the chance to attend courses to support my parenting. I wholeheartedly endorse those types of moves. But I make it plain: it is the responsibility of parents, with our support, to ensure that children get a good education.

Lord Elton: My Lords, this action was taken for the benefit of the child, Jackie. Can the Minister tell us what steps have been take by the authorities responsible for depriving her of her mother's care to see that her care continues to be satisfactory and loving?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I must repeat that I am not able to comment on individual cases. The courts take all circumstances into account in their work.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether, in the context of this and similar problems, the Government are planning to expand the availability of affordable parenting education and support?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, through the work on the Children Bill, as the noble Lord will know from yesterday, and through the work that we are developing for children and families, we are looking at how best to support, through the work of the parenting fund, for example, organisations that work with parents. As I have already said, we recognise that it is critical to offer support to parents. I repeat that it is absolutely essential that all children receive the benefits that a good education can bring.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister concerned that female prison numbers have risen by 194 per cent over the past decade? Might that suggest that perhaps one should sit on one's hands a little longer and ask whether there should be more constructive interventions than resorting to imprisonment—much as we all would wish that every child should go to school—and recognise the importance of education to children?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is for the courts to determine the appropriate action in all cases. I am not sure that I can link the comments of the noble Earl with the Question, except in one context: we know that children and young people who do not receive the benefit of a good education are more likely to become offenders and are therefore more likely to be imprisoned.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I accept that the noble Baroness cannot comment on particular cases, but she can comment on general arrangements. Can she assure us that arrangements are in place to ensure that, where a child is deprived of the care of a parent—particularly a single parent—the authorities that impose that deprivation will make arrangements for the care of that child? The noble Baroness will be aware, although she may not be able to comment on the case, that, according to the sister of the child in question, those arrangements are not working.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have said that I am not prepared to comment on an individual case. It would be wholly inappropriate. I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to ensure that children are cared for, as appropriate.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would agree entirely with the Minister that it is vital that all children receive the best possible education and that for that to happen they should turn up to school. But does she not understand that by simply repeating those comments she has not answered the basic question as to whether a particular punishment—the mother going to prison—and repeating that punishment is appropriate in a case where the parent is clearly unable to enforce the condition that the children go to school?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand entirely what the noble Lord is saying. I hope that equally he understands that it is for the courts to decide the appropriate action to be taken—not for me, as a Minister, or the Government. It is an appropriate course of action if the courts decide that it is. What lies beneath the Question is how we view the importance of education. I believe that it is critical, for all of the reasons of which noble Lords are fully aware, for the life chances of children that we ensure that children receive an education. Under the 1996 Act a variety of different options are available, which we have supplemented, to try to ensure that that happens. One of those is the right of the courts to imprison.

Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister says that it is for the courts to determine the appropriate penalty, is she making a commitment to abandon the mandatory sentence?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am making no commitment, as the noble Earl is fully aware.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I wish to comment on today's Order Paper. Those noble Lords who follow such matters will know that yesterday we moved three orders to today to try to make yesterday's business more manageable. For reasons that have been explained to me, but occasionally baffle me, the way that the Order Paper has had to be printed today puts the three orders ahead of the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. However, the Unstarred Question will be debated before the three orders. I do not believe that that will cause any inconvenience. Although the reason for printing in such a way might be baffling, that is how we shall proceed. The appropriate explanation will be given at the time and, "You know it makes sense".

Business of the House: Debate this Day

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Williams of Crosby set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL]

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Bill:
	E. Arran, L. Carlile of Berriew, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Hayman, B. Jay of Paddington, L. Joffe, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. Mackay of Clashfern (Chairman), L. Patel, Bp. St Albans, L. Taverne, B. Thomas of Walliswood, L. Turnberg;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed; and
	That the committee do meet on Wednesday 7 July.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before we approve the Motion, perhaps I may ask the Chairman of Committees two short questions. Will he confirm that when the Joint Committee on Human Rights met on Monday last, it declined to give the Bill a compatibility certificate, as it was incompatible, as it currently stands, with the European Convention on Human Rights? Should not such matters be resolved first, before Bills are committed to Select Committees? What weight did the Committee of Selection place on the issue of disability when it arrived at the composition of the committee? Can he confirm that there were nominations for Members of your Lordships' House who have particular experience or expertise in the area of disability? Given the outright opposition of disability awareness groups and the Disability Rights Commission to the legalisation of euthanasia, does the Chairman of Committees not agree that it would have been helpful for one of those Members of your Lordships' House to be appointed to that committee?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, regarding the first point made by the noble Lord on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have not seen its report. But it is an issue that the Select Committee will take very much into account when it sits. As noble Lords will see from the Motion that I have proposed, the committee will not sit until July, so there is ample opportunity for that matter to be taken into account.
	Regarding the disabled, the membership of the committee was selected in the usual way by the usual channels. I know that a great deal of care was taken by the usual channels in putting forward the list of names that is before your Lordships. I do not know whether any Members of your Lordships' House who are disabled volunteered to be on the committee, but when the committee first meets it will be calling for evidence. That is the opportunity for the disability groups that the noble Lord mentioned to submit their evidence.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it not significant that the BMA and virtually all of the medical colleges have come out strongly against the Bill? Does the Chairman of Committees not agree that they are the people who will have to bear the heat, the burden and the strain if the Bill were to be passed? Bearing in mind those points, it may not be wise to go forward with the Select Committee at this stage, given the cost and difficulty of meeting during the Summer Recess and the attendant difficulties of the situation.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is not for me today to go through the rights and wrongs of the Bill. I know that the noble Baroness has strong views on the issue. As I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the usual channels took great care in choosing the Members of the Select Committee who have been proposed in this Motion. I am sure that, particularly under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the Bill will be given very serious consideration. It is for the BMA and others to submit their evidence.
	There is more than one member of the medical profession on the committee. I do not believe that there is any proposal for the committee to meet in the recess. It will meet for the first time in July before the House rises, but there is no reason to suppose that it will meet during the recess. It is likely that when the committee meets in July it will request written and oral evidence and I assume that its next meeting will be when we return—either in September or October.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise for asking a question to which I ought to know the answer. Can the Chairman of Committees say at what stage, if any, the withholding of a certificate of compatibility becomes a bar to the progress of legislation? Does it hang in the air as a comment even up to enactment or is it a structural necessity that it be acquired before that takes place? I apologise for not having given the noble Lord notice of the question.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, catches me out completely. Frankly, I have no idea of the answer to his question. I shall do what I can to find out and I will let the noble Lord know.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hesitate to correct the noble Lord on the number of medical persons associated with the matter. On my count there are four members of the medical profession on the Select Committee.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not say how many there were, but that there were some. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for giving us the precise number.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the comment by the Human Rights Committee is not a requirement for legislation? It simply indicates that if an Act is enacted it may be subject to challenge and declaration of incompatibility. That does not in itself invalidate the Act.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—who is not a member of the committee—for his information as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be. As I said originally, this is obviously an issue which the committee will look at with great care when dealing with the Bill.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	[The page and line refer to the Bill as first printed in the Commons, brought from the Lords on 8 April 2003.]
	1 Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out "2003" and insert "2004"
	2 Page 2, line 8, leave out from "and" to end of line 9
	3 Page 2, line 12, leave out from "Act" to "the" in line 13 and insert "and"
	4 Page 2, line 13, after "2003" insert "may be cited together as the London Local Authorities Acts 1990 to 2004"
	5 Clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out Clause 3
	6 Clause 4,page 3, line 14, leave out "current"

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6.
	Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	7 Page 3, line 14, after "displayed" insert "on the date on which it is proposed that the vehicle should be disposed of"

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
	Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Jenkin of Roding: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7, to leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I shall explain very briefly why I ask the House to disagree with another place in their Amendment No. 7. I can assure the House that this will not give rise to a serious constitutional crisis. The promoters of this Bill, the Association of London Government, of which I have the honour to be a co-president, had intended to delete Amendment No. 7 from the Bill. Unfortunately, that was not done in another place due to a drafting oversight. I now ask noble Lords to disagree with the amendment so that it can be sent back to another place so the oversight can be rectified. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.
	8 Page 3, line 18, at end insert— "(b) in the case of a vehicle on which a licence is displayed and to which paragraph (a) (ii), (iii) and (iv) above does not apply, at any time after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the licence expires;
	9 Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) Subsection (2) is omitted."
	10 Clause 6, page 5, line 3, leave "subsections" and insert "subsection"
	11 Page 5, leave out lines 9 to 12
	12 Clause 10, page 6, line 25, leave out Clause 10
	13 Clause 11, page 9, line 2, leave out "Railtrack PLC" and insert "Network Rail Infrastructure Limited"
	14 Page 9, leave out line 3
	15 Page 9, line 7, after "subsidiaries" insert "(within the meaning given by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 (c.6))"
	16 Clause 14, page 10, line 10, leave out Clause 14
	17 Clause 15, page 11, line 28 Leave out Clause 15
	18 Clause 19, page 13, line 34, leave out "3" and insert "2"
	19 Page 14, line 4, leave out "3" and insert "2"
	20 Clause 20, page 14, line 38, leave out "4" and insert "3"
	21 Clause 21, page 15, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) Different levels may be set for different areas in Greater London and for different cases or classes of case."
	22 Page 15, line 22, leave out "(4)" and insert "(5)"
	23 Page 15, line 24, leave out from "means" to end of line 26 and insert—
	"any joint committee established under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70) and comprising at least one member from each borough council."
	24 Clause 24, page 17, line 8, leave out "5" and insert "4"
	25 Clause 26, page 17, line 37, leave out "or"
	26 Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
	"(c) premises which the council are satisfied are being, or within the last 7 days have been, used for the provision of—
	(i) entertainment of a description falling within paragraph 2 (e), (f) or (g) of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17); or
	(ii) entertainment facilities falling within paragraph 3 (1) of that Schedule, and in respect of which a premises licence under Part 3 of that Act is required but not held; or"
	27 Clause 28, page 18, line 18, leave out "£1,000" and insert "£750"
	28 Page 18, line 19, leave out "£2,000" and insert "£1,500"
	29 Page 18, line 21, leave out "£1,000" and insert "£750"
	30 Page 18, line 21, leave out "£2,000" and insert "£1,500"
	31 Clause 31, page 19, line 21 after "repealed" insert -"and the provisions of that Act shall apply in the area of the London Borough of Barnet"
	32 Clause 32, page 20, line 19, leave out "6" and insert "5"
	33 Clause 34, page 20, line 25, leave out Clause 34
	34 Schedule 2, page 22, line 21, leave out Schedule 2
	35 Schedule 3, page 23, line 4, leave out "3" and insert "2"
	36 Schedule 4, page 24, line 1, leave out "4" and insert "3"
	37 Schedule 5, page 24, line 29, leave out "5" and insert "4"
	38 Page 25, line 26, leave out "Railtrack PLC" and insert "Network Rail Infrastructure Limited"
	39 Schedule 6, page 28, line 22, leave out "6" and insert "5"

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 39.
	Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 39.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Bill returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Middle East

Baroness Williams of Crosby: rose to call attention to recent developments in the Middle East; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, in introducing this very important debate I point out that at the other end of these great Houses of Parliament there is extreme interest, concern, public and media involvement in the subject of higher education fees. I suggest that the debate that we are having at this end of these great Houses of Parliament is of least of an equal degree of importance concerning as it does one of the most difficult international problems that exists, one that increasingly threatens the peace of the whole region and one in which the United Kingdom and her allies are so intimately involved.
	I begin this debate with a very brief quotation from what I believe was an inspiring and very moving article by the former Speaker of the Knesset from 1999 to 2003, Mr Avraham Burg. I beg Members of this House to read the article because I believe that it goes to the heart of the tragedy of the Middle East. He said,
	"The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations".
	Israel has an astonishing record of achievement. Its citizens are among the most innovative and well educated of any country in the world. I do not often make personal remarks. I am absolutely certain of one thing. As someone married to a leading Jewish American who died recently, both of whose parents were on the Gestapo black list, which had on it only a few hundred names in the United Kingdom, nothing on Earth would persuade me to be anti-Semitic or to be other than a strong champion of the survival and the safety of the state of Israel.
	Like many other Members of this House, I have the right to be critical of the leadership of the present government of Israel. It is not because I wish to damage the state of Israel, but because I believe that the leadership is profoundly ill advised in the way it is trying to go about creating peace and security for that country.
	I would not for one moment treat it lightly. Israel has suffered outrageous atrocities. I saw a picture in Haaretz a few days ago when I was in Israel which moved me very deeply. It was of a father and a brother, their heads turned away from the funeral corpse of their son and brother who had been killed by mindless and uncaring suicide bombers. It was a picture that one could not see without feeling one's own heart moved. So I do not make any excuse for the outrageous behaviour of some of the Palestinian extremists.
	I also cannot make an excuse for what I have seen of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by the state of Israel. We spent some eight days there in an all-party group, which was led by Christian Aid and a non-governmental organisation, which consistently works in the field of humanitarian relief in the West Bank and Gaza. We went out of our way to speak to Israelis, Palestinians and members of the Israeli Government as well as to members of the Israeli opposition. I did not know until I went there that, for example, the West Bank is honeycombed by marvellous roads with highways paid for in part at least by outside donors, which link one settlement with another, but which are not available for use by Palestinians at all.
	I did not know that the settlements, which now contain some 198,000 people in the West Bank and Gaza, and another 170,000 in east Jerusalem, now cover one hill after the other with their handsome, regimented, white-painted houses. I did not know that Palestinian villages are blocked off from access to the major roads by a series of heavy boulders rolled into place so that one village after another cannot even use a truck to gets its produce out.
	I did not know that in many areas on the grounds of security—I understand those grounds—citrus groves and orchards had been grubbed up and then bulldozed, leaving the hapless folks who are the victims of collective punishment with no legitimate means of survival. I did not know that many of the villages close to the border between the West Bank and Israel have been made virtually unliveable in because of sniping on both sides. I met a lady in Beit Hanoun, which is close to the border, with nine children in her care, not all her own—some of them were her sister's and her brother's children. All were under the age of 11—the Palestinians have large families—and were so terrified at meeting strangers that they all fled behind their mothers' skirts when we arrived. That woman was somehow trying to keep that family alive but all her citrus groves had been destroyed.
	I did not know that in place after place medical centres, education centres, schools and even churches are divorced by the wall from the people they are meant to serve. I have seen the wall, as have other noble Lords. In many places it is three metres high and has very few gateways punctuating its grim perception.
	All of this continually adds to the bitterness on both sides. What we are looking at right now is a vicious spiral of retaliation and revenge from which absolutely no one gains. I have to add to that one other thing which I find profoundly saddening. So far, at least, the Arab states that should be profoundly concerned in solving this problem find themselves so divided that they seem unable to be effective. The collapse of the Tunis summit is a tragedy for all of us because many supposed that at that summit the attempt to try to launch a new peace process would be initiated.
	This very day the situation has taken yet another turn for the worse, not just due to the argument over the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, but perhaps equally disturbing the cutting off, just today, of all United Nations aid to Gaza because the United Nations has said that it is no longer able to get food into that place through the many checkpoints on the way. Seventy per cent of the people of Gaza depend today on the World Food Programme and on humanitarian aid, but that programme has, as of today, had to stop altogether. God knows what they will live on.
	But this, bad as it is, could be an opportunity and not just a tragedy. Perhaps out of all this horror, the proposal that Mr Sharon has made for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza could be turned into the first stage of the long walk back to peace. It is just possible that if it could be brought within the structure of the road map and of multinational commitment, instead of being the end of a road to disaster, it might be the first step back. Why do I say that? I say that because on both sides of the border in the past few days there has been a courageous declaration in favour of peace from both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
	On the Palestinian side, the declaration—published in both Palestinian and Israeli papers—of 17 outstanding Palestinian leaders and intellectuals led by Hannah Asrawi, calls on their side to show restraint and not to go back to the cycle of violence. On the Israeli side, as many of your Lordships will know, there is an astonishingly courageous opposition to Mr Sharon's policies. Five conscientious objectors are serving time in prison—most of them have not yet even reached the legal age of adulthood. Many, many Israelis have courageously committed themselves to trying to help Palestinians as doctors, human rights workers and so on.
	All this gives us some slight hope. I come now to the last part of what I want to say, which concerns what we can do about the situation. I pay tribute to the Minister and, indeed, to the Government for their very hard work to try to draw the world's attention to the need to get back to a peace programme in Israel and the Palestinian territories. I pay tribute to the help they have given in supporting the restoration of security by the Palestinian Authority so that when it is called upon to deal with terrorists it at least has some means to do so. Many of your Lordships will know that it has not had those facilities recently because many have been destroyed.
	There is one more step that Her Majesty's Government ought to take. When I was in Gaza one of the most outstanding human rights lawyers of that area, Dr Raji Gourani, told me that one of the deep tragedies for moderates in Palestine who call upon their fellows not to revert to violence and who condemn suicide bombing was the failure of the West to support the referral of the wall, which is built almost entirely within West Bank territory, to the United Nations. Your Lordships will know that the General Assembly passed by a very clear majority a decision to refer the line of the wall to the High Court at the Hague. Your Lordships will also know that the United States voted against that. We, along with our EU partners, abstained. When we call upon both sides to recognise the rule of law, we must not apply double standards.
	All is not lost. There is some chance to build upon the passionate desire of both sides to create a peace. There is some chance to build on the good will and decent commitment of ordinary men and women, both Israeli and Palestinian. I conclude by asking your Lordships to consider how best we might help in any way we can to bring the peace process back to the start, for if we go the other way, there is no hope for us. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I agree with her totally about the critical importance of the subjects we are discussing today; namely, developments in the Middle East. It is a measure of our times that almost every current issue, domestic and international, seems to lead back to developments in the Middle East at the moment. I can scarcely think of one that does not.
	Whether it is global terrorism, domestic terrorism, Al'Qaeda, divisions in Europe and chronic anti-Americanism, the Iraq war or the political fortunes of President Bush or, indeed, for that matter, the fortunes of our own Prime Minister, the Israel/Palestine conflict, about which the noble Baroness just spoke so movingly, and which is still spiralling downwards, the state of affairs in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya or any of the Mahgreb countries, or the overall alleged confrontation—one that I do not believe really exists—between Islam and western civilisation, in every case the trail leads back to the Middle East labyrinth.
	Of course, it does not even stop there for the same thing goes for current debates about weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation. It applies to questions about the reform of the United Nations, which is now deeply mired in the oil-for-food scandal with Iraq. It applies obviously to OPEC and to key questions about oil and gas markets and prices and, therefore, to the whole world economy. All these are directly related to Middle East affairs and Middle East developments. Indeed, even history itself is being re-opened as arguments rage around us from the British imperial role back to the Crusades and, indeed, to the story of Islam in Europe long before that.
	It is no wonder that it is extremely difficult to decide in this debate on which aspects to focus. In making my selection I can make a confession straight away, which is that I am determined to be on the optimistic side about the whole Middle East region. Despite all the horrors, I believe that the case for hope and therefore for pressing on with current efforts is broadly the right one to make. I know it is obviously very hard to be optimistic in face of the sheer horrors that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has described: the horrors of the suicide bombing, which I see is now brought to a new low point of evil by Hamas with the ultimate sickness of using young children to wear explosives; or when faced with the ill judged killing of Sheikh Yassin, however much blood was on his hands as a Hamas leader—and there obviously was some; or to be positive after the Ashura slaughter at Karbala in Iraq, or indeed the equally appalling slaughter in Madrid which had Al'Qaeda's fingerprints on it.
	I know, too, that the debate will continue—maybe not this afternoon, or maybe it will—about the question of whether the original coalition invasion of Iraq was right, legal, or well timed, or whether the arguments deployed by the Prime Minister at the time were wise or not so wise. I personally think that the invasion was right, but I am not so sure about the arguments that were used; I think they had the wrong emphasis. But to me it is just common sense that the renaissance of a better Middle East has to begin, and had to begin, with the removal of Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who spread instability and hate throughout the entire region, besides killing his own people in Stalinist numbers—many of them killed by gas and poison weapons. The world is unquestionably a better place without him in power. I believe we will yet live to see the Middle East region in all its aspects—including those to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict—a better place as well.
	We are all constantly assured—by those who claim to know—that there is no connection and never was between Saddam and Iraq on the one hand, and the promotion of global terrorism and the stirring up of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the other. I believe that evidence may well show otherwise. What about Ansar al-Islam, which is a killer organisation to whom Saddam gave ample space and which undoubtedly had loose Al'Qaeda links? Was not the whole terrorist network of the region undoubtedly set to run through Baghdad even if its origins were in the training camps of Afghanistan? Was not money from Baghdad helping to fuel the hatred and bitterness which has led to the disaster that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has rightly described in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
	But now—after Iraq, but still facing the horrors in that conflict—we are where we are. Whatever the past arguments, I want briefly to offer two propositions on which we should base our next steps forward, because forward it is that we have go. The first is that although it will take far more time than the impatient media experts and commentators will allow or even understand, Iraq will slowly over several years come good as a peaceful, prosperous and pluralist society, provided that the coalition stays firm and committed. If I am asked why I am so sure of that, the answer is because there are strong signs of recovery already. Of course we just get the news of the horrors and deaths—that is inevitable—but behind the grim headlines the facts are quite different.
	Today, a year after the Iraq invasion, the majority of children in Iraq are back at school with better-paid teachers, often in better schools; hospitals are all open and many are re-equipped; Baghdad's streets are crowded and the wheels of commerce are spinning; a new financial and banking system is up and running; shrewd investors are already putting in their money; there are 100,000 Iraqi policemen back on the streets and the numbers are rising fast; and there are also contingents of Iraqi soldiers working under the coalition command to restore stability.
	Experts all predicted that there would be civil war between the factions, but despite grave provocation that has not happened. The vast majority on all sides, including the Kurds, want to keep Iraq united. All the big players in the region want the same thing. Experts also said that there would be a massive refugee problem and widespread starvation; none of that has happened either. The infrastructure investment is roaring ahead and I hope that we get a good, decent share of it. Electricity production is said to be higher now than it was under Saddam. Waterways are being cleared, sabotage is falling and oil exports are overtaking pre-war levels.
	Are not all the signs that, despite many of the poisonous difficulties, other Arab states are drawing some of the right lessons: that sponsoring terrorism does not pay and that reform in the direction of pluralism and democracy, plus integration with the global market system—each country at its own pace, no uniform pattern—is the path that pays? That surely is the lesson that is being learnt in Tehran, in Damascus, in Tripoli and in Cairo, and, in a different form, in Riyadh, as well as up through the Gulf States?
	Of course little of this gets reported, but what it adds up to is that the long-term vision of a more stable Arab region is not just a mad American dream. With the exception, I admit, of the Israel-Palestine struggle, it really could be that in the next few years the Middle East hotbed of terror and Islamic fanaticism could become the more prosperous, democratic, engaged and tolerant Islamic world it certainly is fully capable of being. It may even be that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right—she often is on these things—that there is some hope even in the misery of the Palestine question. It certainly continues to baffle me that the powerful Jewish community in the United States—most of whom are enlightened people who realise the dangers of Israeli extremism and the dangers of the Sharon policy, which may well destroy his country and not save it—seem so quiet and so ineffective in bringing their political weight to bear. I hope that they change their view and carry forward the right case for Israel and not the wrong case for Israel which so often seems to come to the fore.
	That brings me to my second proposition, because there are plenty of people around who deny that democracy and stability can ever break out in the whole of the Middle East region. Both at the radical end of Islam and outside it there are plenty of voices saying that Islam and democracy cannot live together, that they are incompatible. I believe that that depends on what one means by "Islam" and what one means by "democracy".
	Islam is not just a contained system of governance ordained and directed by Allah, as the radical extremists who distort the Koran and the divine texts wrongly keep arguing. Similarly, democracy is not just about majority rule and votes—as some people rather closer to home appear to believe as well. Moderate Islam is perfectly suited to operating alongside democracy, tolerance, pluralism and indeed the high-tech age—all within the Islam rubric. Democracy is certainly not just an exclusive western model, or a single formula; it has been rightly called "a contested system", and it is about constitutionalism and the rule of law as much as it is about votes. That I believe is something that all wiser Muslims understand and welcome when surveying the Middle Eastern scene.
	We have to build on the links with moderate Islam, and we have to now build hard and fast. I would just add that I believe that that starts very largely not in the Middle East but at home. London, with a million Muslims, I am told, is one of the larger Muslim cities of the world. Because we are still an open society we allow all kinds of extreme, radical, fanatical Islamic expression in this country of a kind which would certainly never be permitted in most Islamic lands and Islamic societies. So that makes it all the more important that now—particularly now—we unite with the vast majority of Muslims who reject all that extremism and denounce it as superficial, as it is, and a distortion of the Koran, as it is, and who want to be both British and Muslim, and who deplore and reject terrorism in all forms or as a solution to the Palestine tragedy or any other conflict.
	Arab-Israel conflict may be one of the worst poisons in the Middle East well. But terrorism and Western hatred have, I think, still deeper roots and are based on deeper misunderstandings, by both sides, which we have allowed to develop. These we can overcome by understanding how Islam can work perfectly well together with modernity. Indeed, it may even provide a better grounding for the information technology revolution and modern industrial patterns than crumbling Western values. As I said, we can overcome that by working with and learning from, and not patronising, separating or fencing off, the Islamic community here in our own country.
	As I suspect today's debate will show, the Middle East problems are as many-sided and as seemingly intractable as ever. They will take years to calm down, let alone solve. My contribution to this debate is to say that we can start here at home, and that we should do so with vigour, hope and confidence.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. They have injected into the debate not only passion but common sense, two essential ingredients if we are ultimately—and I stress "ultimately"—to see peace in that area.
	The noble Baroness spoke of the tragedy of the Middle East and I share her view—I think it is a tragedy. When Israel was formed, and despite the incursions of various Arab states, the atmosphere was very optimistic. There was a sublime idea that, somehow, Israel could offer the world an example. I think that, basically, that is still true. She spoke also of her right to be critical of the leaders of Israel, and to some extent I share that view as well. Perhaps we can also agree that the present leaders of Israel are not wholly wrong. Ultimately, however, I endorse the opinion of Shimon Peres, who spoke movingly the other day about Israel's mission, a mission which I wholly support.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke of his optimism. I share that view, too. In the long term, however, we have to be patient. It will not happen by next June. It may take several years before the situation in the Middle East settles down. As the noble Lord rightly emphasised, however, the situation is by no means confined to Israel. If Israel did not exist, the avarice of some Arab leaders would not, in my view, disappear. Barbarism would simply be transferred to other countries and other places. Saddam Hussein was, sadly, not unique. I can recall going to Saudi Arabia in 1996. In Riyadh, the first thing I was shown—shown with pride—was the execution locations. I was absolutely horrified and my hosts were gratified by what they were able to show. That is all too common among some tyrannical Arab leaders today.
	Although I have reason to doubt the purposes stipulated for the invasion of Iraq—a view which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, advanced today—the removal of Saddam Hussein has been beneficial for the people of Iraq and the people of the whole world. Iraq is a much better place without him. But why, oh why, do we have to pretend about the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqis are supposed to have had? In my view it is an absolute irrelevance.
	I believe that a durable peace will ultimately be possible in that area, but I doubt whether it is advisable to pretend that it can be achieved by the end of June or in July of this year. As I said, I think that it will take many years. It follows, therefore, that Iraq must be given time in which to settle down. Although I think that immense difficulties will confront that country, I share the noble Lord's ultimate optimism about it. The welfare of that country and its people must now be given precedence over the convenience of the United States and other occupying countries. The election in the United States must take second place to that.
	Regrettably, however, the situation in the Middle East is far more volatile than it has been for some 50 years—the assassination of Sheik Yassin, Hamas's attacks on defenceless Israeli men, women and children, the Israeli assaults on Gaza and other outposts occupied by Palestinian Arabs—it goes on and on and on. Will there be an end to this dire escalation of violence?
	I believe firmly in a Jewish state—a state which embodies all the democratic values for which the founders of Israel stood and fought. They were compelled to fight to exist, and exist they certainly did. Over several years, Hamas has refused to come to terms with this unalterable fact. In my view it still does. Its former leader, Sheik Yassin, vowed its destruction. He was not simply a spiritual leader, as some would suppose. He was far removed from being a benign figure in a wheelchair. He believed in the destruction of the state of Israel. He supported the idea of suicide bombing to achieve that. He opposed vitriolically any possibility of agreement between the two sides. That was the nature of the man. Nevertheless, I wholly oppose his assassination, on two essential grounds. First, it was inimical to the long-term viability of a democratic Israel. Secondly, it would have been more likely, if he had died from natural causes, that his supporters would not be able to pretend that he was a so-called martyr.
	I do not think that Sharon's potential political demise, followed by the possible election of Benjamin Netanyahu, would represent a real improvement. Both support the barrier. I think, like several Likud ministers, that it is the antithesis of a durable peace. That is also the view of the majority supporting settlement evacuation who, tellingly, have also pointed out that this appeared to be consonant with Sharon's own plans.
	I do not conceal from the House that Israel and the Palestinians face turbulent times. It is idle to think that Israel should turn the other cheek when confronted by vicious assaults from Hamas. Would we, if faced by a similar situation? We certainly did not when faced by the murderous ambitions of Al'Qaeda. After all, Israel cannot ignore its own electorate any more than we can. But it is one thing to repel attacks, another to behave proportionately and have a more positive response than sheer violence. That is the stance of the Israeli Labour Party, Shenui, Arab parties and all those who support the view that, ultimately, it is in the interest of Israel to have a lasting peace.
	Unfortunately, that will not happen rapidly. It is vital that, somehow or other, Palestinians must be identified who are prepared and disposed to negotiate. That is a condition precedent for any advance. I do not accept the doctrine, promulgated by some in the Israeli Government, of being able to eliminate violence first and speak later. Dialogue with moderate Arab Palestinians is an absolute prerequisite. It is essential to give them a distinct role. It may be difficult to do it at the present time but, ultimately, it has to be done.
	Israel's position needs to be more widely understood, not least by the European Union. Trade between the expanded European Union and Israel is vital, especially if we are to witness peace in that area. Ultimately, it is better to talk than to engage in bloody war.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I am sure we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for having initiated this debate on a situation which is, in many ways, perhaps the most dangerous and sensitive of any in the world today. I would also like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, once paid me the compliment of saying that, to his surprise, he had agreed with something I had said in a speech. I return the compliment by saying that I agree with almost every word he said in that preceding speech.
	I do not propose today to rehearse the many reasons why I and many others still maintain the view that last year's invasion of Iraq has never been convincingly or honestly justified by either the United States Administration or Her Majesty's Government. So long as the full case put forward by the Attorney-General is withheld from us, it is difficult to judge the arguments by which the Cabinet were persuaded to enter the so-called coalition, given the fact that we had repeatedly been assured that regime change was no part of the British Government's policy.
	The revelations by Mr Richard Clarke over the past week do not surprise me. Several of us have argued that the obsessive determination of the Bush administration, if not of the President himself, to invade Iraq and change the Iraqi regime long predated the horrors of September 11. Attempts to justify the invasion by linking Saddam Hussein with those horrors are not only dishonest, they also seriously detract from—or, as Mr Clarke has put it "greatly undermine"—the credibility and effectiveness of the so-called war on terror. In those pre-invasion debates, many of us asked "Why now"? Iraq was the wrong target at the wrong time.
	I do not know how many of your Lordships will have read a devastating critique of the failure of the Bush Administration's diplomacy towards Iraq, by the former Under-Secretary in the State Department, Mr James Rubin, in the New York Review of Books last year. Mr Rubin underlined the disastrous consequences of placing United States policy towards Iraq solely in the hands of Mr Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, and of failing to use—indeed, refusing to employ—the experience and skills of American diplomats, many of whom, as I know from my own contacts, have a deep understanding of Iraq and the Middle East. The most serious error was to have linked the war on terror with the attack against Iraq, thereby negating the immediate upsurge of sympathy for the United States after September 11 from virtually every country in the world—some of whom then found themselves branded as members of the infamous Axis of Evil.
	But I do not want to concentrate on the past. In Iraq, the top priority must be to ensure security, to enable the Iraqis to take over responsibility for their country again. An early withdrawal of troops—whether American, Spanish, British or from other coalition partners—could have very serious and dangerous consequences for the Iraqi people, some 10,000 to 15,000 of whom are believed already to have lost their lives as a direct consequence of our invasion and occupation of their country. The old lesson that the history of the Middle East should have taught us—that it is easier to enter than to exit—is, I fear, coming home to roost.
	Elsewhere in the Middle East, I welcome Her Majesty's Government's continued perseverance in their attempt to maintain tolerable relations with the governments of Iran, Syria and now Libya, against many odds. In this respect, at least, the Government have not been afraid to distance themselves, with our European partners, from the more hard-line antics of the neo-conservatives in Washington. I also suspect, but do not know, that the welcome decision by the United States to withdraw, at least for the time being, what they describe as their "Greater Middle East Initiative" may owe something to the more balanced reservations voiced from this side of the pond.
	The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on taking the risk, as he himself put it, of going to Libya last week to talk with Colonel Gaddafi—something which would have been regarded as totally unthinkable even two years ago. I was particularly struck by the positive reaction to his initiative from bereaved relations of the Lockerbie victims, in spite of attempts by some of their interviewers to get them to denounce it. Is the lesson of that visit that we should never regard any mutual hostility as immutable? If we remember our own post-colonial history of dealing with leaders such as Jomo Kenyatta, whom we had once regarded as beyond the pale, is it so unthinkable that both the Americans and the Israelis might soon be prepared to reopen negotiations with the Palestinians, whom they currently denounce as terrorists or whom they have isolated in the ruins of Ramallah?
	It is, as always, the situation in Palestine which holds the greatest dangers for all of us. I am glad to see some signs that President Bush may himself be prepared, even as the date of the presidential elections draws near, to take a modest initiative by inviting Prime Minister Sharon to Washington. I do not under-estimate—none of us should—the political difficulties of removing illegal Jewish settlements from Palestinian territory or of dismantling the appalling security fence that cuts deep into Palestinian territory beyond the green line.
	It has always amazed me that successive Prime Ministers of Israel, with American approval, have persisted in encouraging more and more illegal settlement in the Occupied Territories. Surely it must have been obvious to all of them that they were creating a rod for the backs of themselves and their successors? If, as Prime Minister Sharon has suggested, all Israeli settlers are to be removed from Gaza, where will they go? I hope that the Minister can reassure us that we will make every effort, both bilaterally and through the Americans, to ensure that they are not transferred to swell the numbers in existing illegal settlements in the West Bank or around Jerusalem. If they are, and if the security fence remains in place, I see no prospect of a viable Palestinian state as part of the two-state solution which President Bush claims to support.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, we all deplore the continued use of suicide bombers and, in particular, the sickening spectacle of young children tricked into believing that killing Israelis will win them a reward in paradise. But the continued Israeli practice of targeted assassinations—rightly condemned in public statements, if not in Security Council votes, by Ministers as illegal—is not only a flagrant breach of international law by a country which prides itself on obeying the rule of law; more tragically, neither targeted assassinations nor the security fence are doing anything to protect and preserve Israel's security or to contribute to the war on terror. Quite the contrary: they are whipping up a surge of resentment against Israeli occupation, expropriation, deprivation and intimidation in the West Bank and Gaza, which no Palestinian authority can possibly be expected to control.
	Tragically, the assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin appears to have contributed to the decision to postpone this week's Arab summit in Tunis at which the Saudi Government had apparently been ready to revive their peace initiative agreed two years ago at the Arab summit in Beirut.
	So is it too late to expect any early and realistic progress on the road map to peace? I think that I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that all is not lost. I hope that I am right. But I also hope that, when she comes to sum up the debate, the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance on this vitally important question. Let us hope that President Bush is now ready, as he promised the Prime Minister in Belfast, to put as much personal energy towards the Arab/Israel situation as the Prime Minister put, and continues to put, towards Northern Ireland. A genuine, determined and balanced American commitment to peace in Palestine, if supported and encouraged by their partners in the quartet, would do more than any military operations or assassinations to contribute towards winning the so-called "war on terror".

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, I am both delighted and humbled to follow the masterly exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. Today, I was wondering whether to speak on Iraq or on Israel/Palestine, but the noble Lord's contribution has enabled us to see the two in very clear connection and we are most grateful.
	I am also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, not only for initiating the debate but also for the very moving way in which she introduced it. Sadly, a number of us could provide examples similar to the stories that she gave so movingly today. The sadness is that there is no shortage of examples such as those to quote.
	I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for making it clear that to be critical of the Government of Israel is not necessarily to be anti-Semitic. That, I believe, is a lie that needs to be nailed again and again. I remind your Lordships that the word "Semitic" is a generic term. It applies to peoples and languages across a broad region. Whatever else the relationship may be between the Jews and the Arabs, they are, at the very least, first cousins, if not brothers, both in terms of their language and their culture.
	I want to say something today about the religious elements of the Middle East conflict and something about the importance of inter-faith dialogue. I speak about the religious elements in this conflict as, in a sense, a professional. As a professional, I want to say at the outset that I believe that religion can be an incredibly dangerous and tyrannical force when it is wrongly used. We see examples of that in many different parts of the world, and there is no shortage of examples of it in the Middle East situation that we are addressing today.
	Riah Abu El-Assal is the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. He was born an Arab, a Christian and a Palestinian. He is still an Arab and a Christian, but his passport tells him that he is now an Israeli citizen. That is because the town in which he was born changed its status in about 1947–48. For some time, and until fairly recently, a considerable number of Arabs within the state of Israel were also Christians but most have now left. They have done so for a variety of reasons, some of which are quite complex. But there seems to be a single thread running through all those who have emigrated from that part of the world. It concerns their inability to live with what they describe as a "hybrid" identity in a situation where polarisation has taken place to such a point that they no longer find themselves with any place at all. One is either an Israeli or an Arab; and one is either Jewish or a Muslim.
	Bishop Riah cannot bring himself to speak of Israel/Palestine as the Holy Land—a term which many of us westerners use with nostalgia, and perhaps with sentimentality, to describe the place of the birth of Jesus. At best, Bishop Riah can speak only of the "Land of the Holy One". He asserts, not only that holiness is a moral and spiritual quality, most appropriately used of persons rather than places, but also that the actions taking place on his soil are anything but holy.
	And yet there is no escaping the fact that so much of the territory in question is regarded as sacred by adherents of all the three Abrahamic faiths, who regard this plot of land—that is no bigger than the size of Wales, a former Prime Minister reminded us—as their spiritual home. These so-called "holy sites", not least those in Jerusalem, form part of the ongoing territorial dispute, not least because they are regarded as having supreme religious significance for all—or in some cases for just one—of the faith communities.
	It is for this reason that I wish to plead for a better understanding of the religious issues that form an integral part of the Middle East conflict. Just one month ago the American ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, spoke of the religious dimension in the peace process, as one which,
	"threatens to transform what is essentially a political and territorial conflict into an ideological one, and one that will be even more difficult to resolve".
	That kind of scenario certainly seems to apply to some Muslim extremists as well as to some Christian Zionists. They claim divine authority for the violent acts of aggression or for the criminal acts of murder that are perpetrated. That same divine authority is often claimed by those who are settlers on the West Bank.
	When Sheikh Yassin was assassinated last week, he was on his way home from morning prayer. While it is true that he was a terrorist leader, it is equally true that on the ground, among his own people, he was regarded as a spiritual leader. There is no escaping that fact. To acknowledge that simply serves to heighten the religious dimension of this conflict.
	It was in an attempt to address such extremism that the Alexandria process was set up. After considerable preparatory work by the International Centre for Reconciliation in Coventry, and by Canon Andrew White in particular, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, now the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, chaired a three-day meeting in the Egyptian city of Alexandria.
	This meeting was attended by senior religious leaders representing the three Abrahamic faiths in Israel/Palestine. It was co-chaired by the Grand Immam of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi. The resulting declaration contained a joint condemnation of all violence in the name of religion, and a call for implementation of the Mitchell and Tenet recommendations.
	In the weeks following this declaration of January 2002, tension increased on the West Bank, with IDF operations in Jenin and other refugee camps. The most acute tension centred on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and significant numbers of those religious leaders who had taken part in the Alexandria consultation were actively involved in the eventual resolution of that stand-off.
	One of the most moving long-term consequences of the Alexandria consultation has been the deep friendships across traditional boundaries. Michael Melchior is a Jewish rabbi and a former deputy Foreign Minister in the Israeli Government. Sheikh Tal al-Sidr was a founder member of Hamas; he is now a peace activist in Hebron. These two men now embrace each other publicly as brothers, acknowledging the shared roots of their faith and risking constant opprobrium from their more extreme compatriots.
	Sheikh Tal al-Sidr spoke last year at the German Kirchentag, and he was proud to declare:
	"Rabbi Michael is my brother and we will walk this long and difficult path of reconciliation together. We can only walk it together. And as we walk our task is to pull up the thorns and to plant flowers for those who will come after".
	Religion can be a terrible master, but genuine faith can be a dynamic liberator into a fuller experience of what it means to be human. As I end, I can do no better than to quote the exhortation of the psalmist that we should,
	"pray for the peace of Jerusalem".

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I join in complimenting the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her choice of subject for today's debate. It is appropriate because it is so necessary to keep the issues of the Middle East before Parliament, the Government and the country. This debate helps to achieve that.
	I should state that I am chair of the Britain-Israel Parliamentary Group, which is in effect the all-party group concerned with all matters pertaining to Israel and its relations with the United Kingdom.
	The problems and issues of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have been with the world for decades. It is not to the credit of the world community that the problems continue and seem as far from solution as ever they have been. The road map on which so much hope was invested seems to have led nowhere. Agreements and concordats brokered by the United States have not, regrettably, had a continuing momentum. However, the search for a just solution must go on and the policy of Her Majesty's Government must be to support that end. We cannot have further decades of conflict.
	The largest single hindrance to the peace process is the terrorist war waged on Israel. Over the past three years, there have been 21,033 terrorist attacks against Israeli targets, claiming the lives of 916 people. That is the equivalent of 16 terrorist attacks per day. Of those attacks, 425 have been carried out by Hamas, murdering 377 Israelis and injuring 2,076.
	The figure of 377 murdered Israelis equates to 8,621 British people, or 43,136 citizens of the United States, or 58,963 citizens of the European Union. That puts in true perspective the appalling carnage wrought by a merciless terrorist organisation owing nothing to humanity or civilisation. No political objective can justify such inhumanity.
	I was amazed to hear the BBC describe Sheikh Yassin as a "spiritual leader"—although nothing that the BBC says about the Middle East should amaze me. No real and genuine spiritual leader could surely preside over such a murderous record. He encouraged the cult of martyrdom in Palestinian society—a notion that for decent people is totally abhorrent and beyond comprehension.
	There is an international war on terrorism and Israel must be allowed to fight it. Prosecution of the war is not confined to the United States of America and western democratic powers. Israel has to fight it, for it is surely in the front line. Its civilian population is targeted by Hamas and the other terrorist groups.
	Yassin and his like stand in the way of any peace process. His position was impossible to achieve. Israel cannot be eliminated from the map either as a geo-physical entity or as a people. The world community will not wear that ever and at last there are signs—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made reference to this—that more moderate counsels are beginning to make themselves heard within the Palestinian community. We must pray that they prevail.
	Last week my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer instructed the Bank of England to direct financial institutions to freeze any funds they hold on behalf of five senior members of Hamas. Those people are believed to facilitate acts of terrorism. Mr Brown is to be congratulated on that action which, it is to be hoped, will be replicated in the financial capitals of the free world. For too long we have differentiated between the military and political wings of Hamas. The Foreign Secretary played a key role in ensuring that both wings were outlawed in EU policy determined last September, and now we have frozen the financial assets of those whom we believe are involved in terrorism. At least three of those individuals would be classified as members of the political wing of Hamas.
	The time has come for us to take the additional step of including Hamas in its entirety in the list of terrorist organisations outlawed by the Terrorism Act 2000. We must take that action as a matter of haste, before those who support the goals of Hamas find further British men or women—I mean British men or women—who are willing to follow in the footsteps of the two British suicide bombers who killed three and injured 55 in a bar in Tel Aviv on 30 April last year.
	Her Majesty's Government have a record to be proud of in working for a peaceful, just and lasting settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Last week I chaired a meeting of the Britain-Israel All-Party Parliamentary Group here in your Lordships' House. The speaker was His Excellency Her Majesty's Ambassador to Israel, Simon McDonald. He gave an upbeat, optimistic and hopeful expose of the problems facing the world community in seeking to resolve the conflict. It was an encouraging experience to hear him. We are fortunate indeed to have such an outstanding diplomat in such a difficult and sensitive posting. I wish to place on record the thanks and appreciation of our group for the time that he gave to us.
	The arguments surrounding the Middle East and in particular the Palestinian/Israeli conflict have been well rehearsed in this Chamber over many years—probably from the time of the Balfour declaration onwards. We know, as the world knows, what needs to be done. The two-state solution that gives each state secure borders and a viable infrastructure, most notably in the provision of water supply, can be achieved. The way forward is clear, but without an end to Palestinian terror little can be achieved. Prime Minister Sharon has stated his willingness to withdraw fully from Gaza. The Government should welcome that plan, support it in every way possible, and encourage the Palestinian leadership to work with the Israelis to make this move an opportunity for peace, within the road map, and not an opportunity for terrorists like Hamas.
	This country has a history in the region and now must make history again by encouraging an end to terror and every possible route to peace. Fences, walls and settlements are removable; human lives lost to terror are irreplaceable.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, as I listened to my noble friend Lady Williams introducing the debate, tears came to my eyes and I thought, "What can I possibly add?". The case that she made for peace in the Middle East and the balance that she struck are surely unanswerable. My noble friend Lord Russell, who is not in his place at the moment, persuaded me that we all have to speak up, so I was not let off the hook.
	People warned that the Middle East would become a tinder box if the US and the UK attacked Iraq. President Bush said that that would not be so, arguing that the road to peace in Jerusalem lay through Baghdad and that Saddam Hussein's removal was key to a settlement there. At the very least, the jury must surely be out on that. Our Prime Minister emphasised that renewed efforts would be made to try to bring peace to the Middle East. I have little doubt that he did, and does, mean that, but with all the pressures of Iraq, tuition fees and other assorted distractions, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Middle East is extremely high on the Government's agenda.
	We have already seen a distraction from the Israel/Palestine and the Afghanistan situations to Iraq. Iraq has proved a much more difficult country in which to establish unity, security, order and democracy than was predicted. Has the US exercised its considerable influence in the Israel/Palestine conflict? When the Israelis assassinated Sheikh Yassin, it was the US who vetoed the UN resolution condemning it as an illegal act.
	Between September 2000 and June 2003, 74 Israelis and 2,494 Palestinians have died. Israel has suffered over 100 suicide bombings and there have been attacks on settlers. Anyone with any historical knowledge can understand just how threatened Israelis feel. But is their present government right in their current strategy? The Palestinians point to their own casualties and to their imploding economy. Naive young people use what is happening as an excuse for extremism.
	If we look at the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it is very clear that Israel's security measures, the curfews, movement restrictions, the wall and the network of settlements are having a devastating effect. The International Development Select Committee of the House of Commons has described the impact of those as being,
	"so severe as to bring about a situation which is best described as de-development".
	Malnutrition is increasing rapidly in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, not because of the shortage of food, but because it is difficult to obtain food. As my noble friend has said, the UN said yesterday that it will have to halve food deliveries to the Gaza Strip from tomorrow because of restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of staff and supplies. The head of the UN's aid agency for Palestinian refugees, Peter Hansen, said that it was unable to cope with the impact of increased Israeli security at crossing points. The World Food Programme estimates that 150,000 people in Gaza are dependent on that food aid. Hansen has also protested about Israeli measures that were forcing staff to cross in exposed areas, prompting his agency to prohibit some aid workers from entering the Gaza Strip because of "unacceptable risk and danger". He has said that there had been no response following repeated complaints to the Israeli authorities this month.
	Closures have broken up the West Bank. Settlements and their segregated access roads also help to fragment because the Palestinians cannot use those roads. Land has been confiscated and agricultural lands are cut through. Settlement activity, with its associated road building, as the Select Committee has concluded,
	"threatens . . . the viability of a future Palestinian state".
	Despite agreement to freeze settlements, they continue to be established and expanded. Now we have the wall as well. It does not follow pre-1967 borders; it extends into Palestinian territories, encircles Palestinian communities and splits Palestinian areas.
	It has cut people off from basic services, it has damaged infrastructure such as electricity and water supplies, land has been confiscated and crops have been destroyed or rendered inaccessible. Goods cannot be brought to market and people cannot reach the markets to buy the goods.
	The wall has already enclosed entire towns and villages, directly affecting more than 200,000 people; 14,000 Palestinians living in 17 villages between the wall and the green line are now effectively trapped. A further 35,000, who live close to the wall, have been separated from their land, losing their access to a livelihood, as well as to water supplies and basic services such as health and education.
	The most fertile agricultural areas in the West Bank have been confiscated and lie outside the current route of the wall, effectively denying Palestinians the potential to develop a modern agricultural economy. The building of the wall has reduced access to medical services to a critical level. Oxfam reports that village clinics have assumed the full burden of emergency and chronic cases without having either the trained staff or the equipment to cope. There have been a number of deaths, including 14 children, which have allegedly occurred as a result of delays in obtaining medical treatment due to restrictions in movement. Medicines are not readily available where and when needed.
	Is this destruction of the Palestinian economy deliberate and, if so, why? Whatever Israel's obviously genuine and well founded fears, do the Israeli Government really think that their strategy will lead to peace?
	Oxfam notes that during the past three years, there has been,
	"a dramatic deterioration in the humanitarian situation".
	For example, Israeli policies of closure have prevented Palestinian communities, particularly those in remote rural areas, from accessing clean water. There has been a predictable increase in the prevalence of water-borne diseases.
	Water has been a problem, and it is a symbol. Agreements under the Oslo peace process that Palestinians and Israelis should take joint responsibility for water resources through the Joint Water Committee have never worked, according to Oxfam. For any activity such as digging wells and repairing systems, the JWC needs to give permission. It rarely does so. The result is that the Palestinian communities are not permitted to build new water infrastructure. Yet the Israeli water company immediately connects new Israeli settlements in the West Bank to the mains water supply network.
	On average, settlers in the West Bank consume up to five times more water than their Palestinian neighbours; 40 per cent of Israeli water comes from aquifers beneath the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip; and 80 per cent of water in the West Bank goes to Israel, leaving about 20 per cent for Palestinians.
	The effect of the conflict on upcoming generations cannot be underestimated. Save the Children has reported more than once on the effect on children in the region. In the past three years, 465 Palestinian and 104 Israeli children have lost their lives. Currently, there are 350 Palestinian children detained by Israel, often in conditions that Save the Children describes as "cruel, inhumane and degrading".
	Children see the wall as being like a prison that separates them from friends and family. It makes it harder or impossible for them to lead a "normal" life—to reach their schools, to play and to mix normally. The culture of violence, in which children grow up, pervades schools. Children and teachers report increasing levels of violence. In the Save the Children's latest report there are many comments from children. A typical comment came from a Palestinian child, who said:
	"One day when we were in school taking exams, there was a curfew and when the (Israeli) army went into the school our hearts beat fast and we were scared. They threw tear gas but thank God we survived".
	Another child described the wall as,
	"a snake that spreads its poison".
	Another child made a request to Prime Minister Blair and Britain—to us—by saying:
	"I request to move this wall far from our school because it causes danger and fear. I really hope this comes true and thank you".
	I am sure too that Israeli children echo the call for peace, security and normality.
	Oxfam has argued:
	"The humanitarian situation [in the region] is already bad and will not improve without a political solution that guarantees protection and justice for all the citizens of the region".
	In its view the British Government should play an important part as they are,
	"an important donor in the region, an influential member of the EU, and a key partner of the US in the Middle East. It is therefore well placed to use its influence in order to bring about such a solution".
	Will the noble Baroness tell me what hopes they have that Israel could, for example, be persuaded to change the route of the wall? Are they encouraged by any reasonable voices coming from Palestine? And, what discussions are the UK having with the US over Sharon's visit to the United States?
	The Israeli Government reject the notion that as an occupying power they have responsibilities under the Geneva Convention. Our Government have urged them to change that view. Is there any possibility that they might? Should we not do what we can to ensure that international human rights monitors, including child protection monitors, are deployed in the occupied Palestinian territories?
	It has been said that the US will take no action against Israel prior to the presidential elections. Whatever the results of that election, neither Mr Bush nor Mr Kerry seem to have a commitment for taking any action thereafter. It is most depressing to read that. Surely, therefore, the EU has a role to play.
	Ariel Sharon negotiated trade agreements with the EU earlier this year. Surely, they should be suspended pending action on Israel's part to try to implement the road map for peace, to which the EU is a signatory? The EU has, after all, tried to put pressure on the Palestinians to abandon terrorism. Will the noble Baroness tell me whether there are discussions with our EU partners to suspend these upcoming trade agreements?
	We agree with the Government that a two-state solution is the only route to peace. There are those in Israel who think likewise. The Peace Now group in Israel has done brave work in trying to bring peace to the region. It is encouraging to see that there is a newly established Peace Now group in the UK, which is also arguing for such a two-state solution. It has sister branches in France and Italy and has plans to establish such an organisation in the United States. We wish it well.
	Surely, it is in the interests of all in the Middle East to advance solutions that seek justice for both sides in this long and intractable conflict before it is too late.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is appropriate and timely that we should be discussing the Middle East; and not just one country in the region—Iraq—as we have done so often over the past two years, but taking a wider perspective. At no time in modern history have the prospects for that region been so cloudy; have the chances of achieving peace, prosperity and stability for all its peoples been so overcast by the deep shadows of war and terrorism; and have the optimists been so outnumbered by the pessimists. So the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is to be warmly thanked for providing the House with this opportunity to stand back from the day-to-day news from Baghdad and Basra and to look at the region in the round.
	It seems fashionable just now to speak about a vague entity known as the "wider Middle East". I have never heard it precisely defined: does it stop at Iran or Afghanistan or Pakistan in the East? Does it include Central Asia? How far does it go into Africa? It sounds all too much like one of those Washington speechwriter's constructs—"the axis of evil" was one—which cause more friction and trouble than they bring enlightenment, focus and precision. Let us hope that if the G8 summit this summer is to focus on the Middle East, it will do so with its feet planted firmly on the ground of reality, and will deal with the region as it is, and not as we might wish it to be.
	Realism surely tells us that if we are to address the overall problems of the Middle East with any prospect of success, we must face squarely two inescapable challenges; the need to see Iraq through its present travails, and the need to return without delay and with determination to the search for a peaceful, two-state solution to the problem of Palestine and Israel. If we try to proceed without addressing those challenges, if we try to brush them aside or ignore them, any words that are written about the future of the Middle East will be written in sand.
	The Iraqi challenge will not be easy to resolve, but it is not impossible. No one can watch the fortitude with which most Iraqis are facing up to the dangers and insecurity of their daily lives, no one can hear of the optimism with which they seem to be looking to the future, and of their joy at being rid of Saddam Hussein, without a feeling of admiration and a realisation that the course on which we are set, of bringing that country to a prosperous, democratic and stable future, is the right one, and one of which we must not tire. To leave Iraq to slip back into anarchy, perhaps to split up, or to fall back into the hands of another egregious dictator, would be unpardonable.
	That is what makes the recent change of heart in Spain so worrying. It is not that the Spaniards do not have every right to change their government, and we every need to respect that change. But the proponents of withdrawal from Iraq are, like so many here in London, still fighting battles over last year's war, and they, like those who do so here, risk doing that at the expense of the future of Iraq. Certainly, the Spanish demand that the UN be established as a central player in the phase which will follow the return of Iraq's sovereignty, planned for 1 July, is an entirely legitimate one. Let us hope that it can be met. The failure to involve the UN at the heart of the political future of Iraq from the moment the war ended, as it was involved in Afghanistan, was, I believe, a major error, and one for which we and the UN too have paid dearly.
	The sanguinary stand off between the Israelis and the Palestinians will be even more difficult to bring to an end, and is even more necessary to remedy. It will not be done by building walls on territory that international law says does not belong to Israel. It will not be done by extra-judicial killings, nor by suicide bombers. It may be helped by unilateral withdrawals, both of Israeli troops and settlers; but even that will not in itself amount to a solution. A solution will be found only by returning to the negotiating table, and doing so without giving the men of violence a veto on any such negotiating process, and without trying to pick and choose with whom one will negotiate. It is truly tragic to see the Israeli people, in whose predicament and suffering we would be wrong to lose interest or sympathy, being led into a dead end. It may be that a further major international effort to resume negotiations will now have to await the outcome of the US elections, but it is crucial that thereafter it should become the first order of business for whoever is elected. The British Government and the EU should surely set that as a key objective of our foreign policy.
	So much for the two essential components of any broader approach that we may take towards the region. But what should we be working for in the Middle East? Last year's human rights report on the region was a salutary reminder of how much is wrong and how much needs to be righted. It was all the more salutary in that the report was written by Arabs, for Arabs, and about Arabs—that is a fundamental point. We should not be seeking to impose some Western, democratic template on the region. We will anyway not succeed, even if we try. Look what happened in Iran after the fall of the Shah: a reminder, if ever we needed one, of the law of unintended consequences. So we should be working for evolutionary change, not mighty upheavals, and we should be working for peaceful change, which will take time and patience, and which will need to be brought about by the peoples of the region, not by outsiders.
	Nor should we ignore the security policy dimension of what has been for decades a singularly insecure region. There is, I would argue, a golden opportunity to remedy in the Gulf region the absence so far of any sub-regional security arrangements. So long as Saddam Hussein ruled in Baghdad, that was inconceivable. Now that he is gone, it should be possible to negotiate regional confidence-building measures and security guarantees based on the triangle of key players in the Gulf: Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Later, if there were an Arab-Israel peace settlement, it should be possible to go wider, but we should not wait for that in the Gulf. Will the Minister say something about the Government's thinking and plans in that respect?
	Iran needs a special and separate mention. It is not an Arab country, and in many ways its situation and problems require different prescriptions and a different perspective. Last month's elections were a setback for all those who hoped for a steady, democratic evolution there, but they did not mark the end of democracy in that country, nor the extinction of all hope for peaceful, democratic change. We should not therefore be too discouraged, nor should we be diverted from our policy of critical engagement, which I believe to be the right one. The indications in the press of yet another setback in attempts to get some sort of dialogue going between Iran and the United States are worrying. If the United States can have a dialogue with North Korea, and can contemplate giving that country security assurances, what is the insurmountable obstacle to their doing just those same things with Iran? Perhaps the Minister could tell the House about the Government's views on that matter.
	The temptation to give way to pessimism when looking at the Middle East is often hard to resist. It is so easy to draw worst case scenarios and to sink into mutual recriminations over the events of last year. But we really cannot afford such an approach. The Middle East is on Europe's doorstep, and we will have to live with whatever occurs there, for better or for worse. If the terrorists get their way and propel the West into a confrontation with Muslim countries, it is the Europeans who will bear the brunt of the extensive damage that will ensue, whether from the activities of terrorists in our midst, or from an interruption in energy supplies. So we really do need to exert ourselves and to pursue a positive and constructive agenda. We will succeed only if the Europeans can put behind them the disagreements of last year. We will need to speak up with a single voice in Washington and to stand our ground there in the face of those neo-conservatives who would pursue policies which they may sincerely believe are in their interests but which are certainly not in ours.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for introducing this debate, and for speaking so clearly and in such a balanced way. I much appreciated what she had to say.
	Everyone involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is suffering terrible hardship. The Palestinians feel helpless and hopeless and are suffering badly, while the Israelis are damaged, fearful and desperate. No one is winning, and everyone suffers. The situation seems to worsen day by day. Virtually everyone seems to believe that a just, two-state solution is the answer. Here in the UK and in Europe, there is a tendency to believe that Israel is largely to blame, and that if only Israel pulled down the fence, withdrew from the West Bank, and allowed free movement of Palestinians in and out of Israel, all would be well and the conflict would end. However, while the conflict would be over, it would be because Israel no longer existed. Not only Hamas, but Fatah, and other terrorist groups have repeatedly made clear that their avowed aim is the total destruction of Israel. One just has to look at Fatah's official web site to see that. It states:
	"Complete liberation of Palestine and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence . . . armed public revolution is the method to liberating, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished".
	That seems fairly unambiguous to me.
	"Have no mercy on the Jews and wherever you meet them, kill them",
	and so on; was the message that poured out of Palestinian television in the wake of 9/11. That sort of propaganda inciting hatred, death and destruction continues day after day in the kindergartens, schools and mosques. Much of it was inspired directly by Sheikh Yassin. Is it any wonder that the young are brain-washed into violence; and is it any wonder that cynical terrorists can send out 12 and 14 year-olds as human bombs in that most cowardly and despicable of acts?
	It is the terrible and long-standing antipathy to the existence of the state of Israel constantly inflamed by propaganda and the deliberate grooming of kindergarten children that fuels the terrorism, rather than the poverty and deprivation which the Palestinians undoubtedly suffer but which alone has never been a justification for terror anywhere else in the world. In any event, many of the suicide bombers turn out to be educated and relatively better off rather than deprived.
	It is against that background that I come to the killing of Sheikh Yassin which was greeted with such an interesting range of responses. In the EU and UK it seemed often condemned as the assassination of a crippled old man in a wheelchair, a spiritual leader coming away from his prayers in a mosque—what could be more dastardly?—and among Hamas and in other Muslim countries as a disaster with vows of revenge and extreme retaliation. But can anyone doubt that Hamas is uncompromising in its implacable opposition to Israel and that its avowed aim, constantly reiterated, is the total destruction of Israel? The key point here is that it wants no truck with the idea of a negotiated agreement. Withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank is merely the first step on the way to the complete extinction of Israel and its people. That is Hamas's message and that is what Sheikh Yassin inspired his followers constantly to achieve. He would never have dreamt of denying it and he revelled in the fact that his hands were steeped in the blood of Israeli citizens. He continued to inspire his followers to pursue these ends until the day he died.
	However, given that he was built in the mould of Osama bin Laden, it has been questioned whether it was wise to kill him now or indeed at any time. Would not it just inspire further terrorist activities? But terrorism against Israel is a daily way of life and death; and no doubt that will continue so long as it is not prevented. Indeed, one could say that our own Government's efforts to remove Osama bin Laden will not stop terrorism but we cannot simply roll over and leave him to get on with his activities; nor could Israel be expected to leave Sheikh Yassin.
	To paraphrase Ferdinand Mount in the Sunday Times in a somewhat different context, Israel feels "damned if it fights terror, dead if it doesn't". We cannot uncouple Yassin from Mr Sharon's proposal to remove the settlers from Gaza and some of the West Bank. Here in Europe and the UK this has been greeted with a mixture of suspicion and anxiety and something less than enthusiasm. One might have thought that a little encouragement would not have been out of place, but instead there is suspicion that, first, Sharon did not mean it. While he can be accused of many things, and often is, I do not think that he can be said not to be blunt, outspoken and to mean exactly what he says. He does not prevaricate. Furthermore, he risks his political future by pressing ahead with this idea. So he means it and he has been saying it for over 12 months. It is also said that it is far too little and limited. But surely it is an important first step towards a negotiated settlement and deserves more generous recognition.
	If that is the response in Europe, the response in Gaza has been even more confused. The Palestinian Authority has found it difficult to come to terms with and is uncertain how to respond, as it must now be seen to respond, while Hamas has greeted the news as a great victory. While Israel desperately wants peace, Hamas desires victory and the withdrawal from Gaza is seen as a victory for terrorism. It provides great encouragement to press on with more terrorism. If they can achieve withdrawal without negotiation, who needs to negotiate?
	I imagine that in this war with Hamas—and it is a war—Israel has to show that withdrawal from Gaza is not only not a sign of weakness, as withdrawal from Lebanon was construed, but is a sign of strength and a willingness to take the first step in a negotiated agreement. That, too, is another reason for targeting the Hamas leadership now; and, furthermore, it might also help to redress the balance in favour of the moderates in the Palestinian Authority who, with a little more help from the West, might begin to exert some pressure on the terrorist infrastructure. It was encouraging to read of that brave group of Palestinian intellectuals who called for a repudiation of terrorism as a way of achieving a just settlement for the Palestinians. It was encouraging, too, to read of the UK Government's efforts to bolster the Palestinian Authority for this purpose. I hope that the Minister may give us some details of what we are doing to help improve security in Gaza and to provide more aid to those unfortunate people caught in the middle.
	It is also against that background that the security fence has to be viewed. I do not refer to the barriers we have been putting up around the Palace of Westminster to prevent the possibility of a terrorist attack but to Israel where that possibility has been realised every week for the past couple of years. It is an everyday fact; and Israel's right and indeed responsibility to try to defend its citizens seems entirely proper.
	The objections raised are, first, that it is a wall although less than 10 per cent is a wall—and that incidentally was built a little while ago and is right on the Green Line, as I recently learned from our ambassador to Israel—and the rest is a fence. It is undoubtedly a strong, secure fence and one which has proved to be pretty effective—hence the outcry from Hamas. Nevertheless, it is one which can be moved given the possibility of negotiation between the Palestinians and Israelis. Indeed, some of the fence has already been moved. But negotiation is the key. Once the threat of terrorism is removed, there would be no need for a fence. Its position is negotiable if anyone were willing to talk without the threat of violence.
	The potential dividends for both sides, given only the beginning of a meeting of minds, are enormous. Even a modest reduction in the language of terrorism could bring tremendous benefits. Within Israel, the fact that Muslim and Jew can live together is shown in innumerable ways every day. When in Israel recently, I visited a number of hospitals and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In contrast to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, I was struck by the fact that large numbers of patients, staff and students from both religions were living and working together. I learnt that of the Members of the Knesset some 10 per cent were Arab Muslim. That seems rather larger than the proportion in any of the political parties in this country or, indeed, in any other western democracy.
	The head of the transplantation services at Hadassah Hospital was a Muslim. While I was there, I heard about a Muslim patient who was receiving a liver transplant from a Jewish patient who had died. A Supreme Court judge is a Muslim. I am not sure that we have any. Sixteen per cent of the heads of departments at Afula Hospital are Muslim. No less than 34 per cent of the new medical student intake at Hadassah Hospital this year are Muslim. That is twice the proportion in the population.
	There are myriads of examples of Arab and Jew living, working and playing together within Israel. Israel has shown, too, that it can live in peace with its neighbours in Jordan and Egypt. It is also the unfortunate case that no such admixture of Jew and Arab can exist in other Middle East countries when we know that over 700,000 Jews have been driven out of Iran, Iraq and Syria in the past few years.
	But Israel is showing that it is possible for the two to live together and it is that which we must try to build upon. So I ask the Minister, first, for more details of the UK Government's efforts to bolster moderate Palestinian Authority leadership as it strives to improve security. There is time before Israel starts to withdraw from Gaza. Secondly, will my noble friend give more details about the humanitarian effort that the UK and the EU are making to relieve some of the grinding poverty in much of Gaza? Finally, can she indicate what efforts the United Kingdom Government are making to persuade Syria and Iran in particular to cease their support for training and funding for terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for the way in which she introduced this debate. Like her, I was able to visit Jerusalem, Bethlehem and some surrounding places early last month. The atmosphere was quite tense, with Israelis suffering fear as a result of random suicide attacks, while Palestinians tended towards despair as a result of military occupation and attendant humiliations. Both fear and despair all too easily lead to more violence. Both sides also see themselves as victims—of terrorism and hostile neighbours, on the one hand, and of military force and great injustice on the other.
	Despite this gloomy situation, a strong will for dialogue and effective negotiations exists. Evidence for this lies in the Ayalon-Nusseibeh agreed principles, the Geneva accord and the work, at senior professional level, of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, known as IPCRI. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that IPCRI has done, and is doing, excellent work on cleaning up educational material and removing from it what one might call sectarian prejudice.
	From these positive and negative experiences which greet any visitor to the region, can one give advice to outsiders? I believe that the message to Europe and the United States should be, "Do not allow yourselves to become polarised in favour of one side or the other. Do not be swayed by the politics of the latest atrocity. Devote your whole energy to working for peace through a two-state solution".
	What can we do in our own right? I suggest, above all, that we should be realistic, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Hannay. There is disillusionment caused by the failure of the Oslo agreement and the sense that all dialogue since 1993 has proved fruitless. Further disillusionment arises from the derailing of the road map. Both these were essentially top-down plans and both ignored the religious dimension. I therefore follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry in suggesting that we have to take religion very seriously as the motivating force of some of the most extreme people.
	We should support the Alexandria declaration by religious leaders in the region and the follow-up work now being done. It is vital to agree on the common values of the three great monotheistic faiths. Religious harmony on the future of the holy places would be an enormous help. Religious principles for handling the intractable issue of refugees would be a boon. Religious mourning, even, with commemoration and repentance for the many atrocities on both sides, would pave the way towards peace.
	Realism also prompts us to understand how the political leadership on both sides is widely distrusted. It demands that we accept the difficulties caused by the American presidential election this year. Despite these factors, the issues will not go away—neither the Israel-Palestine conflict nor the wider questions surrounding Israel and the neighbouring Arab states. We should therefore do our best to keep these issues at the top of the agenda for the European Union, the G8, the Arab League and the United Nations, if only because the Middle East is capable of unsettling the whole world.
	Realism indicates that 2004 is unlikely to be the year for big negotiations or big agreements. It should be used to improve the situation in small ways. Now is the time for conflict management and for seeking detente. We should learn from the methods used to end the Cold War, looking closely also at the relations between Israel and Syria after 1974, and between Jordan and Israel in the years leading to 1994. Co-operation between all parties is most urgent on security and intelligence, leading, if possible, to truces and ceasefires. Co-operation can be informal, asymmetrical, but reciprocal. This can lead to a lowering of the risks and to informal "rules of the game" emerging. Confidence-building over practical matters is essential. Tripartite working parties have already had some success. Verification and monitoring are most likely to be needed. Analytical problem-solving workshops, independently facilitated, may prove useful, perhaps at the level of presidential advisers.
	I conclude with some thoughts on the European Union. I agree somewhat with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—the European Union should develop its common policy towards the middle eastern states in as much detail as possible. This should build on economic strength both in terms of trade and of aid. We should use every possible instrument to promote detente and co-operation. To give one small example, the ERASMUS programme for students and scholars should be extended to both Israelis and Palestinians, including those living outside the West Bank and Gaza.
	The common approach of the EU needs to be explained to the people of Europe. How, otherwise, can they know what it is? There are already links between many NGOs in Europe and the Middle East. There is endless scope, therefore, for developing such connections for the benefit of all. With clear exposition of policy, many individuals can become involved and begin to have a helpful role.
	History is highly relevant in relation to the present impasse. I therefore venture to suggest that leaders, both at the European Union level and in its member states, should begin to acknowledge, in public, that we have all had a certain historical moral responsibility for allowing Hitler's genocide to happen. This had lamentable consequences in Israel's expulsion of part of the Palestinian population and its subsequent move into the occupied territories. I say this not to inspire feelings of guilt but to encourage the taking of responsibility for the present, so as to help produce a just and peaceful future. The European Union can make a big contribution, and we all have our parts to play.

Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps one ought to separate the rest of the Middle East from Israel and Palestine. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that some optimistic things are happening in the rest of the Middle East. Iran, despite all the setbacks that it has had recently, is evolving its own pastoral democracy. It may yet submit to good international practice about its nuclear programme and perhaps improve its record on human rights. Iraq, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, may—with patience and a lot of imagination—become a federation with lots of autonomy for different parts of Iraq.
	With respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, I do not know how far the Middle East extends, but I am also very cheered that Libya has now decided to give up its nuclear programme and submit itself to international routes. Those are causes for optimism, but when we look to the core of the problem, I am afraid that I am completely pessimistic. I do not believe that any of the road maps or extended road maps that are about to be proposed will solve the problem in the slightest. We shall still be discussing the Middle East problem—with regard to Israel and Palestine—in 10, or perhaps 15, years from now.
	I say that because, like many noble Lords, I have taken part in lots of debates about this question, read lots of books and thought about both sides. There is so much justice and injustice on both sides that it is hard to see where the virtue lies and where the problem is. It is possible to fear for the existence of Israel, given the history of previous Arab attacks and the recent spate of terrorism; but it is also possible to criticise Israel for its behaviour towards Palestinians within the Occupied Territories and elsewhere.
	It is possible to understand the injustice done to Palestinians over their territory, and possible to understand why Muslims around the world feel that to be rank injustice—greater than any other injustice in the world. It may be a deeper cause of terrorism than any other that one can think of. At the same time, one can see the weakness of the Arafat regime, and the sort of terrorist tactics used by Fatah and Hamas are obviously not the way in which to solve the problem of Palestine. Indeed, I do not think that even moderate forces on both sides, such as they are, could possibly gather together and make the slightest impact on a solution to the problem. Not only are extremists in charge but, on both sides, the more extreme forces are more in power than ever before.
	While I respect the right of Israel to live and hope that it will prosper, it is possible to distinguish between Ariel Sharon and Israel. It is possible to say that Israel deserves a better government than the one that it has; perhaps if it did have a better government, the prospect of peace would be better. It is possible to say that if Arafat was not the weakling that he is—if he had followed democratic practices and had a vibrant Palestinian national assembly—with a lot of local support, enough to be able to rule over terrorist forces and stop them, perhaps we would be better off. But that is not the situation. Indeed, the weakness of Arafat and all that has happened since 1999 has worsened the situation and made the terrorists more powerful. Given that that is the case—and either we are all to blame for it or none of us is to blame for it—it seems wildly optimistic to think that there is a solution to this problem that will be arrived at through negotiations. I say that because I do not actually believe that the two-state solution is a stable one.
	The problem with the Israeli-Palestine situation is that some of the ideas on both sides are rooted in a land-obsessed nationalism, and there is not enough land to accommodate both Israeli and Palestinian demands. There just is not enough land—that is the end of the matter—especially when one considers the potential entrance to both those entities by Palestinian refugees abroad and the number of Jews who might want to settle in Israel, as is their right. I do not know how one can accommodate all those people in the amount of land that there is. While the notion of the state that each side wants is based on land, I do not know how one can reconcile the demands of both those peoples and hope that some reconciliation will take place. That has nothing to do with whether Israel should withdraw from occupied territories, whether a wall should be built or any of those things. The problem is that a rather old-fashioned 19th-century nationalism is now playing out its final tragedy in the Middle East.
	This was the case in Europe, once upon a time, and millions died for Alsace and Lorraine. Now those places are completely irrelevant, and nobody knows where the border of France begins and the border of Germany ends. However, that took 90 years of war before it was settled. The key that Europe found was that prosperity comes not from territory but from trade and economic growth. Once one begins to believe in the possibility that one can have a win-win solution through trade and economic growth, one can stop being obsessed about land. We are nowhere near that situation in the Middle East. Unfortunately that is the case—and we cannot actually start dreaming of some sort of economic union for Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and so on.
	It is hardly something that any government can accept, but, given the current pressures that there are on both sides, from within and from without, I do not see how a solution can be arrived at. As has already been said, 2004 is not the right year to expect a solution, because of the American presidential elections. I do not know why we should believe that in 2005 and 2006 American presidential policy on Israel should improve in any way. I do not know why either Mr Kerry or Mr Bush, were he re-elected, should make any difference, given that Mr Bush was unable to make any difference after being in his most powerful position, having won the Iraq war. If, in that position, he could not move either side an inch from their positions, I do not know what should make us optimistic about a solution.
	Just because there is a problem does not mean that there is a solution. I am increasingly beginning to think that if a solution to the problem arises it will not be because the US or EU or anybody in the outside world intervenes in the Israel-Palestine question. I am sorry to say this, but I believe that it will come when, eventually, after the exhaustion of continuous killing, both sides realise that if they do not live together they will not live apart. There is no other way except for an internal solution, without outside interference. When that will arrive, I do not know; but I certainly do not see it arriving within the next decade or so.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for initiating the debate, I agree with those noble Lords who say that we should look forward and not back. The question whether the Prime Minister deceived himself, was misled by the intelligence services or deceived the public on the question of weapons of mass destruction remains important and troubling for our domestic politics, but it is irrelevant to the future of the Middle East. We can also agree that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was not central to the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein; together with the far-fetched claim that the invasion of Iraq was in fact mandated by the Security Council, it furnished the legal pretext for a war decided on grounds that could not be openly avowed.
	I have heard so often in this House the words that we have heard today—so eloquent, and appropriately so, in their expressions of outrage and horror at the suffering and in reciting the statistics of suffering, and so sensible in their prescriptions. There was unanimous agreement on the desirability of a two-state solution, with the notable exception of the well reasoned dissent of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. However, those words seem a world away from the ambitious design to reshape the Middle East, which has been hatched in the corridors and environs of the White House and the Pentagon over the past few years.
	At an early stage in the run up to the war, the Prime Minister committed himself to the American project, with Britain cast in its now familiar role as junior partner, and it is about the sustainability of that project that I want to say a few words. I believe that that is the essential context of the debate that we are having in the House today.
	The project has two aspects. The first is to change the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of the United States and its allies. The key interests here are the security of oil supplies, the security of Israel, as defined by the Israelis, and security against terrorism.
	The second aspect is more idealistic. It is to westernise the Middle East, starting with Iraq, by spreading the western values of democracy, free markets and the rule of law throughout the region. This is the Wilsonian side of the project. I am not saying that idealism is simply a cloak for realpolitik. The two motives co-existed in different proportions in the minds and hearts of all of those who undertook this audacious adventure. In fact, the two aspects are connected. As the Prime Minister said in a speech in Chicago in April 1999:
	"The spread of our values makes us safer".
	To anyone with a sense of history, this combination of motives recalls nothing so much as late 19th century imperialism. There is the same mixture of commerce, security and moralism and, I should add, adventure. Moreover, in the ethical version of imperialism, to which the Prime Minister is heir, forcible interventions were not ends in themselves, but merely the means to spread western standards, a form of trusteeship later made explicit in the League of Nations mandates established in the Middle East and elsewhere after the First World War. Ethical imperialism was to be a preparation for independence.
	The question is whether a project of this kind makes sense at the start of our own century; whether, in the modern phrase, it is sustainable. I do not think so. Let me consider first the idealistic aspect of the project of forced westernisation. America has never had an imperial vocation. The United States was born in an anti-colonial war, and the identity forged in that struggle has shaped its outlook ever since. In fact the agreement signed by the Iraqi interim governing council and the US-UK Coalition Provisional Authority stipulates the restoration of full sovereignty for Iraq on 30 June of this year, with a coalition contingent remaining,
	"at the request of the transitional administration",
	solely to help to guarantee stability. Yesterday's imperialists never thought that democracy could be brought about in one year.
	The second point is that in its idealistic form imperialism was a failure. With the notable exception of India, the post-colonial world filled up not with the peace-loving democracies of the liberal imagination but with unstable dictatorships and failing states, which exhibit a rich patchwork of repression and revolt, war and civil war, brigandage and random violence. We run a huge risk of recreating this cycle by our intervention in the Middle East.
	I think that the Americans have in their minds the more successful interventions in Japan in 1867 and 1945 and in Germany after the end of the Second World War. But there will be a high degree of scepticism as to whether these are useful precedents for coercive intervention in the Middle East.
	Nor do I think that the Realpolitik aspect of the American project can succeed. I do not think that the security of oil supplies can be assured in face of the radical instability in the regions through which the pipelines run. I do not think that the security of Israel can best be protected by planting American bases in Iraq. In fact, it is a fair bet that the main effect of the American military presence will be to harden the intransigence of both sides. It will suck the Americans into underwriting Israeli expansion and, contrary to what one or two noble Lords have said, that is a serious project, entertained by powerful groups in Israel and it is not a two state solution, but a solution that many Israelis see as being the only solution. No one hears much about the Middle East peace process today. On the contrary, Israel's programme of targeted assassinations is a disturbing sign that it now feels let off the leash. I am not sure what the implications are of Sharon's offer to withdraw from Gaza. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, is right in his optimism about that.
	Further, the American project brings no security against terrorism: it inflames terrorism and makes us a prime target. I agree profoundly with George Soros when he writes that international terrorism should be treated as a crime, not as an act of war, requiring for its prevention or punishment good police work—such as we have just seen in London—not military action.
	Finally, the unilateral nature of the project will, sooner or later, conjure up a world balance of power against the United States. The world does not consist of one giant and a collection of pigmies. China, Russia, India, and France and Germany in combination are great powers and they will draw closer together to resist overweening American pretension, for the simple reason that they will feel less secure. Do we want a new arms race? That is one of the implications of American unilateralism.
	For all these reasons, I conclude that the fruits of the project are likely to be bitter. I think the best that can be hoped for is the emergence of quasi-legitimate client states in the Middle East with sufficient protection by the coalition forces to maintain a semblance of order and to allow some economic progress to take place, and, therefore, some gradual healing of wounds. But that is the best outcome, in my view, and not the most likely.
	Having been so critical of the actions taken by the United States and by my own country, I would not wish to deny for a moment that the world does face problems of security and human rights that should be tackled effectively. I believe, with the Prime Minister, that the doctrine of national sovereignty does need to be qualified on account of the spillover effects of national policies and that terrorism does pose a security threat. But I insist, as I have said many times, that there has to be international agreement—at a minimum among the great powers themselves—about when it is right to intervene, and about the purposes and machinery of intervention. The Security Council of the United Nations remains the best forum for hammering out the terms of such an agreement. Further interventions of the kind we have seen in the Middle East carry the grave risk of igniting the flames of religious and racial hatred and destroying our best hopes for a secure and peaceful future.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I have listened to many speeches given by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. Her words are always wise and leave us all with much to think about. This afternoon we have heard the noble Baroness describe in vivid and moving detail the harrowing conditions in Gaza. I must thank her for sponsoring this debate.
	I want to start by continuing where my noble friend Lord Hogg left off by quoting statistics. Two weeks ago in Madrid an offshoot of Al'Qaeda simultaneously exploded 10 bombs, killing 200 people and injuring over 1,000. It was an act of pure evil. In the past three years since the second intifada began, nearly 400 Israeli civilians have also been killed by terrorist bombings. As in Madrid they were going about their business: dancing in a nightclub, eating pizza, travelling on a bus, or sitting down for dinner to celebrate Passover.
	Four hundred dead Israelis is equivalent to two Madrids. Spain's population is 40 million—seven times that of Israel. So, on a proportionate basis, Israel has suffered 14 Madrids. Closer to home, in 1998 a bomb set off by the Real IRA killed 29 of our own citizens in Omagh. Our population is 60 million—10 times that of Israel. On a pro rata basis, Israel has suffered the equivalent of 130 Omagh bombings. Fourteen Madrids or 130 Omaghs. Which democracy could withstand such an unremitting onslaught and what government could stand by and do nothing when faced with such an existential threat? Israelis, unlike Spaniards, do not have the luxury of throwing in the towel. Have the Israelis over-reacted? Probably. Is the situation for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank truly awful? Certainly.
	However, we must be clear. Abject terror is the cause. Without it none of the horrors that the noble Baroness has described would exist. I have no particular liking for Prime Minister Sharon. To me, he is a man without vision and a bully, to boot. But in the face of terror he has acted like any other Israeli Prime Minister would under the same circumstances.
	I wish to turn to two events that have been discussed in your Lordships' House today, that are relevant—the Yassin assassination and the building of the security fence. Sheikh Yassin had a sordid history. He had previously been arrested by the Israelis for the murder of two Israeli soldiers. He was serving two life sentences. Several years ago, in a prisoner exchange, he was released from captivity. After his release he resumed his activities as the leader of Hamas—not its spiritual leader, but its political leader. He directly planned and authorised many of the suicide bombings that killed many innocent Israelis. Yassin said the following:
	"Islam is against the killing of all civilians. But Israelis are not civilians. We will continue our fight and kill Jews until Israel is an Islamic state".
	One might call us over-sensitive, but we Jews are somewhat touchy when people say that they are going to kill us. We tend to believe them. Based on the history of the 20th century we have good reason for doing so. Sheikh Yassin kept to his word and he paid the price. The Israeli strategy with respect to the terrorists is clear. "If you kill our civilians we will attack your leaders—those who institute brute terror will pay the price and pay it personally". Is that not what we believe too?
	At this moment in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are not our special forces working with the Americans in trying to track down and eliminate bin Laden and the rest of his terror network? And will we not feel just that little bit safer when they, too, pay the price of their evil? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will explain to me, because I really do not understand, why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary described the Israeli assassination as "unacceptable and unjustified"? In Britain, are we not attempting to do exactly the same to another global terrorist? To me that seems somewhat hypocritical, or am I missing something?
	The security fence is a measure of last resort. Since the intifada began, Israel's economy has been in the doldrums. The fence is costing over 1 billion dollars, an amount that the country can barely afford. But again, what other option do the Israelis have? The fence that has been built in the north has already reduced the incidence of bombings, just as the fence that surrounds Gaza has almost eliminated terror attacks from that area. The mistake that the Israeli Government have made has been to build a fence that encroaches beyond the green line. It is a provocative move, although it must be said that under international pressure the Israelis have backed off and rebuilt parts of the fence.
	That is no way for the Israelis or the wretched Palestinians to live. We have two obdurate old leaders in Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat, both forged by many years of conflict. Sharon is brutal and ungiving. Arafat is corrupt and slippery. But there are Israelis and Palestinians who are younger and wiser. Those people who negotiated the Geneva accord are such people. The accord differs from many other attempts at peace, in that it is not an opening salvo, but a final peace treaty negotiated, line by line by brave Israelis and Palestinians. The accord sets out a two-state solution that offers Israel permanent security and offers the Palestinians the viable state that they yearn for. The accord has much to commend it.
	I pay particular tribute to Daniel Levy, the son of my noble friend Lord Levy, for originating that project and helping to drive it to reach its conclusion. In the end, the Geneva accord, or something like it, will be the final peace treaty that the Palestinians and Israelis will sign. What a pity it is that today neither side has the men of vision or courage to make that happen.
	Egypt and Israel signed their historic peace treaty in Washington 25 years ago this week. A brave man, Anwar Sadat, came to Jerusalem offering peace. The treaty was signed, but Sadat paid with his life. Today, a cold peace exists. Whatever else has happened in the region since 1979, the Israeli-Egyptian border has remained quiet.
	Ten years ago Jordan and Israel signed a peace agreement, also in Washington. Another brave Arab leader, King Hussein, made his peace with Israel. The two countries have also both kept to their commitments. It is often forgotten that Lebanon and Israel also signed a peace agreement in 1983, but Syria, consistent to its hard line and destructive role, forced its neighbour to rescind and tear up the treaty. Several years ago even Syria itself came close to a peace deal with Israel and even now that is not out of the question. Israel does want peace and has shown that it will not only sign peace treaties, but will stick by them.
	I want to end by making a comment about Arab society—not my usual area of expertise, but something I feel that needs to be said. A report published in 2002 by the United Nations Development Programme looked at Arab human development. For the most part its authors were Arabs. It highlighted three deeply rooted shortcomings in Arab society. They were lack of freedom, lack of equality for women and lack of knowledge.
	The Arab people 600 years ago were the light of world civilisation. Today, despite their huge natural resources of oil and gas, the 22 Arab nations are at the bottom of the league by any measure of human progress. Growth per capita is less than 0.5 per cent per annum; 27 per cent of Arab men are illiterate as are 51 per cent of women. In 1,000 years, the Arab nations have translated fewer books than Spain translates in a year. Only 1.6 per cent of Arabs have computers, compared with 7.8 per cent of people in the rest of the world. Internet access is almost non-existent. Nowhere in the 22 Arab countries is there a universal franchise, or any form of democracy as we would understand it. Out of 250 million Arabs, only 1 million have the full franchise for men and women. And, irony of ironies, all of those live in Israel as fully participating citizens.
	The Arab peoples are poor, repressed, unempowered and kept in the dark. No wonder they are driven to excess. They are also fed the most virulent anti-Semitic propaganda. On Arab television, in schools and in newspapers, Jews are demonised. The material would make Dr Goebbels very proud. Stopping that would send out a very positive signal to Israelis and to Jews world-wide.
	Yesterday in Britain our security forces prevented what might have been a terrible catastrophe. All of us, particularly those of us who spend our time in this Palace of Westminster, live in the expectation that something terrible is going to happen in our midst. In Israel, the same sense of doom hangs over its population. It is expecting a terrible revenge for the Yassin assassination. Passover is next week and, no doubt, the terrorists will try to outdo last year's gruesome bombing at an old people's home.
	Whether it is Al'Qaeda, the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or Hamas, these people all march to the same beat. Their terror is universal and indivisible—they do not distinguish between Christians, Jews, Hindus, or even moderate Muslims. They will continue their war. It is up to us to stand firm.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are all once again in the debt of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, not only for introducing this debate but for bringing back her first hand and well considered impressions from the Middle East. I have noticed that when replying to debates Ministers take more than usual care to balance evenly what they say about Palestinians and Israelis. I can understand that and accept that there is violence on both sides. But I hope that as speakers we do not conform too much to that convention and measure our column inches so precisely. Neither do I believe that we should belong to one side or another, although that tends to happen in debates.
	We all take up our positions based on our personal experience. In my own case, having worked with aid agencies, I am normally professionally concerned with people who live in acute poverty. That means that I am talking mainly about one group, the Palestinians. I have no doubt that there are some Israelis in that category, but they are not so obviously suffering from a lack of homes, jobs, food or water.
	For example, Palestinians in Gaza now have an unemployment rate of 70 per cent and as a result the proportion of people living there in poverty has come close to 85 per cent. In Rafah alone, 9,970 people have been made homeless by demolition or other Israeli actions since the start of the intifada. These are the figures which persuade aid agencies and the United Nations that the Palestinians, for all their educational and other known advantages—I disagree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, because the Palestinians have some of the most highly educated people—in their present plight can be compared with some of the poorest in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. In addition, they suffer from a national identity crisis which Israel, thankfully, no longer has. One glance at the map reminds us that in spite of their expanding population, Palestinians have to live in an area which is less than one quarter of the size of mandated Palestine. The country was twice the size of Wales, but it is now only as big as two English counties. With the encroaching security wall, it is shrinking in size all the time.
	On the political front, Palestinians are also suffering from a loss of leadership, which has been mentioned, not only through extra-judicial executions but through their own divided loyalties which the Israeli Government exploit mercilessly. They also have to live under the government of Prime Minister Sharon, assuming that he survives the latest corruption charges. I tend to agree with Sa'ib Urayqat, the Palestinian negotiator, that there are at least two Sharons for the Palestinians to deal with. There is the familiar old warlord Sharon who ignores the outside world and flouts international law when he decides, for example, to wipe out a whole Hamas leadership. Last week's assassination of Sheikh Yassin was in my view deplorable and counter-productive. How can this act possibly cure suicide bombing? Is it not likely to perpetuate it?
	But let us not be hypocritical. The West is just as capable of assassination, if in a more subtle form, as Israel and he knows it. But that does not condone the action. The security wall and the expropriation of more Palestinian land are only the latest immoral and illegal acts of the government.
	There is the Sharon of peace who is trying to play along the United States and satisfy Egypt and his own moderates through gestures such as abandoning the Gaza settlements and the partial dismantling of the wall. The jury is still out. The EU and the UN do not matter to Sharon, but the US is his lifeline and President Bush is looking for something in his election year.
	While Bush condones anything which can be called anti-terrorism—and Prime Minister Blair seems to go along with that—he will not wish to hand Mr Kerry any card which is even loosely called democracy in the Middle East. This is also Prime Minister Sharon's internal political game. On the one hand he needs to keep Mr Netanyahu and his group in Likud and the settlers at bay and on the other he needs to show the centre and the international community that he has his own alternative to the road map. He is a master at the game, which while preserving Israel will also ensure his own survival.
	But the stakes are very high. The pressure on President Bush to force a settlement on Israel, as part of a new diplomatic offensive leading up to the election, can only increase in the coming months. Meanwhile, as far as concerns Europe the road map remains dormant, if not dead, not least because of one fundamental snag. One cannot have a two-state solution without two states. As Tony Benn said on "Question Time" very aptly last week, there is no Palestinian state and it is impossible for the Palestinians to negotiate without the apparatus of a state. To its credit, the United Kingdom is doing its best to bolster the negotiating team, but that is only on the surface.
	Again and again the European Union has been humiliated by Israel's demolition of the Palestinian infrastructure it has created—its communications, security forces and political institutions, not to mention the appalling human cost every day at checkpoints in the Gaza suburbs and in local Palestinian communities affected by the illegal wall. What is the European Union doing about that? We who are at one or two removes can easily make suggestions, but it is time for European leaders to offer something new and to say something more than "We are implementing the road map".
	I accept the caveats of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but I believe that the European Union could take more initiative this year in the area of economic development and trade. That was touched on by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky in his final prediction. This is where it does have some muscle if it were only prepared to show it in the Middle East, as it has demonstrated in successive WTO rounds against the United States.
	Surely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, it is time that the Council of Ministers reviewed and even suspended the EU/Israel Association Agreement. No doubt the Minister will have noticed that the International Development Committee has taken up this issue in its recent excellent report Development Assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I quote from the IDC's report, Volume 1, conclusions 23 and 24:
	"Israel's restrictions on the movement of Palestinian goods, its destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and its total control of the OPTs' borders are denying Palestinian exporters access to EU markets."
	It is a simple statement. The committee goes on to urge the Government to propose through the Council of Ministers that it suspends the trade agreement with Israel until it lifts its restrictions on Palestinian trade.
	The human rights clause alone would justify its suspension, but the committee is raising a more fundamental principle of fair and reciprocal trade, which this Government hold dear. In her capacity as the responsible Minister, can the noble Baroness say whether this option is now under consideration and why it has always been successively blocked by Britain, Germany and others in the Council in the past?
	I note that the Government's response to the committee, which was published yesterday, says rather predictably and understandably that constructive engagement is the best approach and that suspension would not lead to a peaceful resolution. And yet one has to ask what possible political outcome for the Palestinians has come from such an engagement. Why are we still applying double standards as regards Israel?
	I know that Israel is a friend of this country. Ministers sometimes speak as though Israel is regarded as the pariah state in the Middle East and deserving of our friendship when even without US backing, it has so many obvious defence and trading advantages over all its neighbours. Surely, "rogue state" would be a more appropriate title.
	Noble Lords will also know that for the past three weeks nearly all United Nations and other humanitarian agency vehicles have been prohibited from crossing through the Erez checkpoint. In addition, the movement of food containers through Karni, which is the only commercial crossing point in Gaza, is still being obstructed. Today we have heard that all food aid is now affected.
	What are the EU states doing to resist and counter this flagrant and illegal action by Israel? Does it not provide an immediate reason to suspend the trade agreement? Why should the UK deal with a government who make terrorism the pretext for actions which can only terrorise and alienate half of their population?
	Finally, what is the UK doing to improve its own relations with the Middle East, to support the wider coalition against terrorism and to encourage peace initiatives by Arab states? This is a vast subject. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, was quite right about the priorities in education. I am glad that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is addressing some of those issues through the British Council and the Global Opportunities Fund.
	The noble Baroness may well say that she is sorry that the Tunis summit was cancelled and that the Arab League is in some disarray. But that failure should be a warning for all those engaged in peace, and a further catalyst for some form of EU action, without which the US will continue to block initiatives from the international community.
	On behalf of Christian Aid, of which I am a trustee, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for undertaking that visit.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, both for introducing this subject so that we can discuss it and for giving her views on it, albeit I did not agree with many of them. However, she and I have been friends for so many years without agreeing on everything that I am sure that friendship will continue.
	I was fascinated to hear the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I managed to agree with one-half of one sentence when he referred to what had happened since the start of the intifada. We should not forget that the intifada started after Arafat turned down the chance of peace. He did not say merely, "I do not accept what Barak has put forward. I do not simply leave Camp David saying that I shall come back with other suggestions". He said, "No", and he started the intifada. He started the terror.
	When that happens we have to think how we would react. I thought about that when listening to Sir John Stevens saying how inevitable it was in his view that we in the UK would be subject to attack and how we would have to be prepared to deal with it. Governments have a responsibility to their own people to save their lives and to protect them. That which we expect our Government to do is what the Israeli people expect their Government to do. Whether we would agree with the steps that they have taken is not totally relevant because we do not elect that government. The extraordinary thing about the Israelis is that they elect their government. They are the only democracy in the area. As I used to say during 18 years sitting on the opposition Benches, the problem with democracies is that they so often elect the wrong people. But eventually, of course, we got it right. Sharon, whether we like it or like him or not, is Israel's elected Prime Minister. I do not think that it helps at all to try to demonise the man. What we must do is to try to help the parties to get together.
	That is a job that I have been doing for a very long time. It started with my trying to learn the Arabic language, which I do not recommend to anyone other than a total masochist. However, I learnt a little and it has helped during visits to most of the Arab countries on the trail of seeking common ground. I have been to the Yemen, Syria, the Gulf, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan. I have just come back from a visit to Jordan where I had the opportunity to meet the King, Prince Hassan and other leaders. I went on to the Territories and to Israel.
	We have to keep doors open. The verbal attacks on other people that we have heard today will not help. They will not advance the cause of peace. The constant attacks on Sharon will not help him to do what he has to do. Whether he gets it right or wrong is a different question. In the view of my family who live in Israel, Sharon's job is to try to save their lives. They believe that he should try to prevent their children from being murdered on the school bus and to ensure that when the children go off to school in the morning they come back home alive in the evening. That is his job.
	Did Sharon get it right with Sheikh Yassin? It seems to me that a majority of noble Lords consider that he did not. However, the majority of Israelis who elected him think that he got it right. They reckon that you cannot deal with these people. They reckon that Sheikh Yassin was not just a murderer but the organiser of murderers. He was not a man who would commit suicide himself, but one who would send others to do it. He has killed, and been responsible for the murder of, hundreds of people. Most Israelis took the view that that man should be taken out. We took that view with the sons of Saddam Hussein. I am sure that we would take that view if we managed to get hold of Osama bin Laden's people. That is a case of double standards. We would take out bin Laden's people to try to save the lives of hundreds of people—British people and others. That is what the Israelis believed that their taking out of Sheikh Yassin achieved and will achieve. That is how they have to handle the matter. It is not what they want to achieve in the long run. They know that they want peace.
	The Israelis do not like the security fence. I have visited it with them. I visited the wall in Jerusalem with an Israeli soldier. It is a most unpleasant place. I asked the soldier how the wall could be justified. He replied, "Easily. Nineteen terrorist suicide bombers came through this exit within the past 12 months and killed and maimed hundreds of people. Since the wall has been built, there have been none. That is what we have to do. We do not like it either". That is their view—that if they need to have a fence in order to protect the lives of their people, they as the elected government will do that, just as we would if we had to protect our people.
	I hope that we shall not be faced with that kind of problem. However, the question is: how do the Israelis move towards peace? To suggest that the Israelis do not want peace shows a total, absolute, abject lack of understanding of the Middle East and of the Israeli people. To suggest that they are a bunch of sadists who want to cause harm to the people who live next door to them is rubbish. What they want to do is to have safety, security and peace. They want safety and security for themselves and their children, and, ultimately, to be able to live in peace with their neighbours. The problem concerns how we can help them to achieve that. How can our Government help to create peace between these peoples? How can the international community work to achieve that? How can we as individuals help? Some of us have very good contacts. Indeed, I suspect that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has much better contacts than I. He probably has contacts with people with whom I have none. But each in our own way must do what we can. We must try to help to get peace.
	Meanwhile, we should understand what is happening. Today I asked the Library staff for a list of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in the past year. There were 44, some in Israel, others in Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Iraq, Chechnya, Morocco, Bogota, Kirkuk and south Russia. That is what is happening in our world. I believe that we in this place should do everything in our power first to recognise the reality as it affects others, and, secondly, to understand that it is flowing over into our world. As regards the Middle East, we should strive for understanding.
	A little while ago I wrote a book entitled, One Hand Alone Cannot Clap. That is an Arabic proverb. One hand alone cannot clap and one people alone cannot get peace. I submit that our task should be to try to bring people together so that both hands can clap and we can help the people in that area to achieve peace for themselves and for others.

Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for an opportunity for plain talk—plain talk about the Middle East. The catastrophe of these events on the Israeli-Palestinian front no longer brooks evasion and half truths. Cobwebs of cliches and stereotypes must be removed. After listening to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I submit, more convinced than ever, that the constant demonising of Israel, the Israeli Government and General Sharon—and the very view that there is a moral equivalence between barbaric terrorist attacks of suicide bombers and self-protective actions of retaliation—is not only unfair, it is also injudicious and unhelpful. It is unhelpful if you want the Israeli electorate overwhelmingly to press for negotiations and make major sacrifices.
	Let us take the reaction to the killing of Sheikh Yassin. If British Intelligence and Czech resistance could justly earn their laurels for killing Reinhardt Heydrich, the Gestapo leader; if Special British Forces, commandos and SAS in successive wars can be justly praised for their lethal sorties behind enemy lines; if Prime Minister Blair and President Bush can urge their forces to get Saddam and bin Laden alive or dead, why are the people of Israel denied their basic right of self-defence? Yassin was the plotter and planner of a thousand deaths of men, women and children—Jewish and Arab children; Arab children, whom he sent into voluntary death, and Arab women. On 14 January this year Yassin issued a decree that entreated women to join the menfolk and become suicide martyrs.
	I assure your Lordships that I have no doubt that there are many cases of gross injustice and utter folly committed by successive Israeli governments, but I submit to you the words of Chaim Weizmann, that moderate and wise first President of Israel, when addressing a British Royal Commission in 1935. He said:
	"The Jewish/Arab conflict is not a conflict between a right and wrong but between two rights and two wrongs. However",
	he continued,
	"ours is the smaller wrong".
	These words have stood the test of time and are valid right up to the present.
	The other day a leading Palestinian said to me in a private conversation that every time an Israeli describes the West Bank as Judea in Samaria any self-respecting Palestinian winces and clenches his fist. I fully understand his feelings, but what muscular motion or body language should express the feeling of an Israeli or indeed a Jew, who searches in vain for any Arab school atlas or wall map with any sign of the existence of the State of Israel?
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has come away with very distressing images of Palestinian suffering in Gaza as a result of the unending Jewish occupation. By focusing on effect we tend to neglect the cause of the tragedy and the course of history. The continuing occupation is the result of the continuing intifada, and not the other way round.
	The Camp David and Taba discussions, and the resulting outline agreement, were supported by 80 per cent of the Israeli electorate, yet they were brought to nought by Arafat and not by Barak. Unless you call liars and cheats President Clinton, Ehud Barak and the majority of all those present, this is the very truth. That the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are a major, terrible road block to peace is clear, but they can, to a meaningful extent, be removed through negotiation—as they were after the peace with Egypt. And it was the much abused Ariel Sharon who, with settlers kicking and screaming, dismantled the settlements.
	Terror existed before the first settler set foot in the West Bank. Before 1967 the terrorists were known as Fedayeen.
	The mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians while Arafat is in power excludes in my view any real prospect of serious negotiation. Why do I mention only Arafat and not Sharon? Because, while Israel is a democratic society and the electorate responds to terror with unshakeable solidarity, it would equally respond to real, confidence-building initiatives on the Arab side by a moderate Palestinian leader supported by the majority of the Arab world. So far, confidence-building gestures from the Israeli side, such as the withdrawal from Lebanon, have been interpreted as weakness and have only put more heart into the intifada.
	The United States must soon revive with full vigour the negotiations prescribed by the road map. Europe, Russia and the UN must follow suit, but let Europe speak openly and gravely to Arabs as well as to Israelis; let it not simply see itself as a counterweight to an allegedly wholly pro-Israeli America but weigh honestly charge and counter-charge without bias and bile. That applies particularly to the media in Europe and this country. The story of an all-powerful Jewish lobby in the United States is a popular myth, or at least a very simplistic concept. The support for Israel in the United States, where I have been recently and visit constantly, is deeply embedded in the public and by no means confined to Christian fundamentalists and the much derided neo-conservatives. Throughout the USA, in the middle west, the south and on the east coast, sympathy for Israel and the rejection of Palestinian terror is much in evidence. Paradoxically, the most potent critics of the Israeli case are the media controlled by Jewish shareholders. In America there are lobbies of every kind and description as part of the political system. Arab Americans are financially very potent and politically very influential; American think tanks and academic centres of Middle East Studies are awash with Saudi money, not to speak of the numerous religious centres which propagate the Wahhabite sect of the Islamic faith.
	The defection of Gaddafi's Libya from the circle of terror-supporting Arab regimes is a landmark of progress. Gaddafi's son, in a recent interview, firmly insisted on radical reform in the Arab world as the order of the day. The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister should be congratulated on this diplomatic success. But when he speaks of the next steps in the war against terror, encouraging Middle East regimes to accelerate the progress of democracy, and when he throws a lifeline to those variously described as rogue states, failed countries, tyrannical dictatorships, he should not waver but ask for positive action before admitting new members to the club of respectable countries. He will soon be receiving the Foreign Minister of Syria, a country whose regime has hideous credentials and is a veritable dinosaur in the zoo of the tyrants.
	Only a few days ago, one of Sheikh Yassin's disciples, who operates out of Damascus, spoke from there by telephone relayed by loudspeaker to the people of Nablus. He threatened death and apocalyptic revenge on the Jews. Syria's young dictator might or might not favour reform; he is in practice captive to the influence of his father's old vassals. Gaddafi's earlier misdeeds pale before the massacres committed by Assad the elder. America's presence in the neighbourhood caused Damascus to co-operate and to expel Iraqi extremists, but as soon as Bashir Assad scented an American reverse he returned to his old stance.
	In a recent debate in your Lordships' House the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, referred to the brutal and systematic incitement of schoolchildren through textbooks and obscene films. Syria can and must be influenced. The intellectual class feels oppressed and is beginning to raise its voice against the Ba'athist regime, which still operates on an emergency law dating from March 1963. In the north of Syria the Kurds, long suppressed, are battling for their human and civil rights. When Her Majesty's Government see the Syrian envoy I hope that they will not mince words and insist on Syria expelling the terrorists from Damascus—which is not, as the Syrian Government contend, a mere address for their information services, but one of the headquarters of international terror. Syria must also give genuine guarantees that its army will one day leave Lebanon, a country which it has economically exploited and, through making the Bekaa valley a centre for the international drug trade, also morally perverted. If the Syrian Government do not comply, the United States must not be discouraged from applying sanctions against the Syrian regime.
	And so here the circle closes: if Hamas and Hezbollah can be contained and disarmed and Israel's borders be secured, the work and prospects of the quartet would stand a much greater chance of success. They could then influence, indeed lean on, Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians and reach a fair settlement on the basis of two states and a compromise on Jerusalem. But this presupposes a sense of purpose and iron will and a measure of unity between Europe and America, an aim for which no sacrifice is too great.
	In conclusion, I appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—whose staunch and convincing defence of human values at one time influenced me to cross the Floor and join her new party—to pause and reflect that in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis settlements can be relocated, protective fences re-routed, but innocent civilians, women and children, who are purposely and systematically murdered or maimed, cannot be brought back to life.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, who I know has devoted a great deal of time to promoting better relations between the people of the three great faiths and to working for peace in the Middle East.
	This debate has been of a consistently high quality. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, only in being rather more pessimistic and in setting out the potential for the situation to deteriorate and the urgency of the need for more British and European engagement. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke of two intractable problems, but I would add a third. The whole question of the development of the Arab world, and the failure of Arab political, economic and social development—of which one or two people have spoken; such issues are raised in successive Arab Human Development Reports—is a third problem which may get worse.
	The situation is not stable, with further deterioration possible not only in Iraq but also in Israel and Palestine. In Iraq we face the risk that some European governments may wobble in their commitment to what will necessarily be a painful and long-term engagement in rebuilding. The United States continues to resist full multilateral engagement, and Washington's illusions after the war that democratisation could be imposed remarkably quickly, remain in some sectors of the Bush administration. Clearly we are going to have to work in Iraq with a succession of imperfect regimes, as indeed post-Ottoman Turkey was a succession of imperfect regimes. We will not get a fully democratic Iraq, and that is something with which we will have to negotiate, deal and engage other Arab states in coping with.
	On Israel/Palestine, the settlements continue to expand, as my noble friend Lady Williams remarked, and Palestinian infrastructure continues to be destroyed. Both sides are becoming increasingly embittered. One now has to ask whether a two-state solution remains possible. The Palestinian Authority scarcely exists any longer, and so the question of how one starts to negotiate a two-state solution becomes ever more difficult. Those of us who see ourselves as good friends of Israel worry about the deterioration in the quality of Israeli life, Israeli culture and Israeli democracy.
	Then there is the problem of the development of the Arab world as a whole, about which the Bush administration wishes to launch a major initiative for the June G8 summit, which is another clock that is ticking. Rapid population increase; failures of economic development; deterioration in the quality of education about which the Arab Human Development Reports made some very sharp criticisms; the mixed record in terms of government-controlled media; and the fearful nature of so many regimes, mean that we have tremendous difficulties in coming to terms with how we encourage their slow progress towards more open societies.
	The confused response of different Arab regimes to the Americans' first draft initiative demonstrated just how fearful they were. So did the collapse of the Arab League summit last weekend, which seems to me a very serious development. I was encouraged by the quality of the Alexandria document produced at a meeting two weeks earlier of a limited number of people from civil society organisations in those parts of the Arab world where it is possible for such organisations to operate. However, some of the questions posed in the Alexandria document about the encouragement of civil society across the Arab world were clearly more than many Arab regimes could stomach. There is rising anti-Americanism across the Arab world. There is a perception that the West is at war with Islam—something which could translate into reality if we are not careful.
	There are conflicting rationales for not tackling all of these problems at once. We hear from Washington that we cannot tackle the Arab-Israeli peace process until democracy has been promoted across the Middle East. We hear that now in place of the old argument that we could not deal with Jerusalem until we had conquered Baghdad. The whole democratisation of the region is very much the flavour of the month in Washington, without a full understanding of just how long-term a project that is.
	From Arab regimes, in turn, we hear that political and economic reform is not possible until there is a Middle East peace—a good excuse for kicking the difficult problems of modernisation to the side. But we have to move together on all of these fronts.
	In that respect, current American policy and the current quality of the American debate is not helpful to those of us who wish to move forward constructively. Many of us are concerned about the fundamentalist undertones in the Washington debate. Several times a week, I receive from the Middle East Media Research Institute an e-mail report about the extremist language one hears in the Arab state-owned press—against the West and against Judaism, and so on. But I also receive from a number of American websites some pretty good examples of extremist anti-Islamic language used in the right-wing talk radio in the United States and in the think-tank community in Washington.
	I read Charles Krauthammer's speech in January to the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute—one of the most influential institutes in the current Administration in Washington. Some of the language that he used was about what he called the "existential enemy"—which is,
	"Islamic fundamentalism in both its secular and religious versions".
	I am not quite sure what "secular Islamic fundamentalism" is, but he clearly believes that it is for the same thing. Had I been reading that from an Arab government's point of view, I think it would have persuaded me that I could not trust the Bush Administration on the greater Middle East initiative. That sort of extremist hard-line language, talking about a war between the West and Islam, is not one with which I would be comfortable. If I were advising an Arab government, I would certainly be extremely nervous about it.
	There is a risk that Europe's secular societies will find themselves caught between contending fundamentalisms—three narrow and negative versions of three great religions, each claiming exclusive possession of the same sacred sites and Holy Land. We must be careful not to let the long-term struggle to combat Islamic terrorism deteriorate into a war against Islam. We hear in some parts of the West suggestions that we are engaged in a war against Islam. In this respect, I agree strongly with the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Skidelsky, that we have to look at ourselves and the problems that we went through in our states and societies during the painful process of modernisation, to recognise the difficulties which traditionalist Arab regimes now face.
	We want the Arab states of the Middle East to go through the process, from traditionalism to open societies and democracy, without the sort or wars, expulsions of minorities and genocides of the fascist and communist regimes that European societies themselves went through. That is difficult, and we are asking them to go through it more quickly than we did.
	As we criticise Islam, we have to recognise the history of our own religion—and I say this as a Protestant—including the witch hunts by the narrow Protestant sects in Britain, the Netherlands and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. We should recognise that the Roman Catholic Church regarded Catholicism as incompatible with democracy as recently as 60 years ago. The Spanish Roman Catholic Church really came to terms with democracy only 30 years ago. So suggestions that Islam is entirely different and incompatible with democracy slides over our own mixed history.
	Many noble Lords have talked about Israel and Israeli responsibilities. I want to say one thing to those who have spoken passionately in support of Israel's current position. We are entitled to judge Israel by higher standards. That is precisely because—and I was brought up to believe this—Israel and the Jewish tradition is so much one of culture, civilisation and, recently, democracy. That means we must ask the Israeli Government to resolve the deliberate confusion about whether they want to occupy the entirety of Israel/Palestine. The expansion of the settlements, the expansion of the roads across the West Bank, the building of the wall where it is now, all look as if Israel wants to occupy the whole of Israel/Palestine west of the Jordan. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, say that Israel should change the route of the wall. That is something we all now have to say loud and clear. A wall on the 1967 boundaries would be acceptable in a way that the current wall is not. The alternative—to face up to possibility that the two-state solution is no longer possible—is hardly thinkable: either the expulsion of the Palestinians, or a secular state in the long run, with a Palestinian majority.
	So where do we go from here? What should we be doing? Many of us have welcomed Her Majesty's Government's engagement with Arab states across the region. We think it was right for the Prime Minister to go to Libya—not a very pleasant state, but we have to deal with states that are imperfect. It was similarly wise to engage with Syria, another extremely unpleasant state in many ways, but we have to try to encourage them where we can, as with engagement with Iran.
	I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the European Union as a whole needs to become more active on all fronts. We cannot safely leave the initiative to the United States, especially under this Administration. That means we need to revive the old European Union's Barcelona process, even with all the obstacles that process has faced. We should be putting more effort into encouraging education at all levels across the Arab word, perhaps with a new Euro/Arab university. We should be providing Arabic materials for the Internet, which all of the reports on the region say are most desperately needed. We should be promoting economic development as far as we can, and we should be making the difficult case that women's rights are essential for economic and social development. We have to revive the road map, through the United Nations, and to maintain our deep commitment as it moves forward. We have to recognise that, as it moves forward, the cost in terms of financial assistance—and potentially in terms of troops to police an interim settlement—would be very considerable. But conflict prevention is cheaper than state rebuilding, as we are now painfully discovering in Iraq.
	I repeat: the situation is not stable. It has the potential to get worse rather than better. That is why we urge Her Majesty's Government to give this region the highest priority.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for introducing this very important debate. It was a real pleasure to hear the noble Baroness's masterly overview of what she described as the most difficult international problem.
	This has been an excellent and very wide-ranging debate. Clearly the two key issues were the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and the Iraq conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the opportunity for plain talk. I think there has been plenty of plain talk today.
	Any eventual solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem must be based on a peace process and dialogue, not conflict. As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, we must do all that we can to help get the parties together. A secure Israel, free from terrorism and suicide bombings, alongside a viable, independent Palestine: balance is the key to our approach. We must understand the fears and anxieties of both sides if we are to understand the dispute. Israelis feel vulnerable to terrible and regular acts of violence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, threats to its very existence. Palestinians feel humiliated and stateless.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I am a strong champion of the survival and safety of Israel. But the war on terrorism cannot be won by military means alone. While terrorism must be effectively engaged, the deeper reasons for its existence must also be addressed. What are the resentments that lead people to be sympathetic to terrorist acts? Why are young men and girls prepared to blow themselves up? As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry pointed out, religion can be a dangerous and tyrannical force. We must try to understand, and be tolerant of, other religions. Several noble Lords mentioned the killing of Sheikh Yassin. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, argued that the killing will not bring peace any closer—in fact, the opposite. Other noble Lords argued that his killing was essential for the security of Israel.
	The noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Mitchell, mentioned the security wall. Israel has a right to defend its citizens against terrorist attacks. But while the wall may reduce the means available to Palestinians to commit terrorist acts, the hardship caused does stoke up the will to do so. Both the means and the will must be reduced in parallel, with security measures and dialogue to effect a long-term settlement.
	Rebuilding the trust required for dialogue will not be easy, but it is paramount. I think all speakers tonight have made this point. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I share my noble friend Lord Howell's determination to be on the optimistic side. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, took a more pessimistic view.
	In the event that a peaceful solution can be found, are Her Majesty's Government preparing plans for a stabilisation force? What role is envisaged for NATO, or the European defence army, in any peacekeeping operations to the Middle East?
	Iraq has changed the geopolitical landscape. The action there has removed a regional threat, removed an enemy of Israel, the wider Middle Eastern region and any peace process, and also opened up Iraq's political and economic development. It has sent a message to other regimes—for example, Libya—and encouraged Iran to open itself up to IAEA inspections.
	It is vital that we continue to build security and stability in Iraq, and rebuild the country's infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke of Iraqi optimism in looking to their future. Amid all the apparent gloom, there has been impressive progress there.
	The Middle East is often viewed through the prism of these two conflicts, in a negative light. However, while the wider Arab world has much to wrestle with, there are positive developments. Much has changed, and is changing, in the Middle East. This we applaud and encourage.
	In Saudi Arabia, we see the first stirrings of representative government, with moves towards elected local government. Crown Prince Abdullah has encouraged economic reform, and Saudi Arabia has applied to join the World Trade Organisation. This has involved opening some sectors of the economy, such as the gas industry, to foreign investment.
	Syria is showing signs of adapting to the new geopolitical reality in the Middle East. It is a key player in helping to resolve the future of Iraq, and has announced its willingness to co-operate in restoring stability there. The relationship between Britain and Syria is developing steadily, and we should be positively engaging it to that end.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out that we should not be discouraged by the, hopefully temporary, setback in Iran. Democracy is still alive there.
	Kuwait has bounced back economically from the Iraqi invasion. British exports to Kuwait were up by 30 per cent last year. Lebanon, which has for so long been synonymous with war and destruction, is now reasserting itself as an economic tourism and entertainment centre with a free market and liberal economy. Its democratic political system, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are nurturing a diversified political life.
	Oman is a good example of a successful, measured and undemonstrative process of transition in the Middle East. Under Sultan Qaboos, Oman has been transformed into an economically successful, stable and highly prosperous country with a strong rule of law. It possesses a highly developed system of government, allowing for an ordered transition to an increasingly representative system. The pace of change is adapted to the needs of the country so that a balance can be struck at all times between modernisation and a preservation of traditions and values.
	We must encourage transition to democracy throughout the region and wider. But, at the same time, we must make it explicitly clear that the export of cultural values is not part of our aim. The fear of their culture being diluted, or even replaced, by the encroachment and dominance of western ideas colours the attitude of many in the Middle East towards Europe and America. I do not share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that we are trying to do that.
	There is political and economic progress in the Gulf states. Enormous trading opportunities are being created for British companies in Dubai, Qatar and Bahrain, as examples. Dubai is planning to nearly quadruple the number of its tourism visitors from 4 million to 15 million in the next six years. Qatar has announced plans to build one of the world's largest airports, costing 2.5 billion dollars. It is also hosting the Asian Games in 2006.
	In the past 18 months, world-class motorsport facilities have been built, safely and efficiently, in Dubai, Qatar and Bahrain, creating new markets for high-performance motorsport engineering. I am fortunate to be President of the Motorsport Industry Association, which has been very active there from the outset. In May, we shall be hosting the first-ever DTI-backed motorsport trade mission to the Middle East.
	This weekend, British engineering talent will be showcased to 200 million TV viewers as a result of the inaugural Bahrain Formula 1 grand prix. British companies have played a major role in that. We are warmly regarded in the Gulf region and we must build on that goodwill.
	There are problems in the Middle East. Every effort should be made in the rebuilding of Iraq and in attempting to bring about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. However, too often, the focus is on the negative. Many positive changes are under way in the region and we should recognise and welcome them.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for introducing the debate today. I am sure that on every occasion that we have discussed this issue over the past few years, we have expressed a blend of hopes and fears about the future of the Middle East and, in particular, about the Middle East peace process.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said, the debate today is, indeed, timely because we are at a number of turning points in relation to the Middle East: in our relationship with Iran; over Syria; in relation to WMD in Libya; and, of course, we are now contemplating the hand-over of sovereignty in Iraq in three months' time. In addition, we are hoping for more discussion on development and reform in the region in the run-up to the G8 in June, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, we very much regret the collapse of the Arab League summit in Tunis.
	However, perhaps most tellingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, said, we are also seeing a real possibility that the vision of a two-state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli question will be undermined. That two-state solution vision is one that has been shared by many people of good will in the region and elsewhere.
	As usual, not only have your Lordships demonstrated a wide range of knowledge and expertise on this longstanding and seemingly intractable issue, but we have also heard strong views, passionately held, eloquently expressed and, of course, diametrically different from each other. They varied from the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, to the pessimism of my noble friend Lord Desai.
	Like many of your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I visited the region very recently. I have been not only to Israel and the Palestinian territories but to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and farther afield—the Gulf, the Maghreb countries, Egypt and Iraq—where I have heard views forcefully expressed on the subject.
	I believe that it is only by seeing and talking to Israelis and Palestinians at home that one can really understand the political complexity, the historical context and, indeed, the current bitterness and grief caused by this deeply difficult situation. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said in that there is a sense of reaching a political crossroads. However, there is also a sense of a looming humanitarian crisis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, described.
	That sense of anxiety is evident among both Israelis and Palestinians. The relentless stream of suicide bombings has destroyed families and brought an ever-present fear to Israeli citizens going about their everyday lives, whether it is attending school or work or simply going to the shops.
	On the Palestinian side, there is growing poverty; the destruction of homes, sometimes involving injury or death to those around; the collapse of law and order; the construction of the barrier; and, of course, increased settlements on Palestinians' land, which has made them ever more desperate. Too many Israelis and too many Palestinians are beginning to lose hope. The fact is, sadly, that neither side sees in the other a real partner for peace.
	I hope to touch on some of the issues raised by your Lordships but, like the noble Baroness, I shall concentrate most of my remarks on the peace process. I begin with where we, the British Government, feel that it is right to concentrate our efforts.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, argued, the road map remains the best way of working towards a peaceful settlement. The two-state solution lies at the heart of initiatives to solve the Middle East conflict. The Arab peace initiative, conceived by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, offered peace on that basis. And the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security was set out eloquently by President Bush in June 2002 and the renewed international action that he started towards that goal. The result was the road map. I remind your Lordships that the road map was agreed by a quartet—that is, not only that great country, the United States, but also the European Union, the United Nations and Russia.
	The road map makes sensible and realistic demands on both sides. However, sadly, it is painfully clear that neither side has fulfilled its obligations under even phase one of the road map. The international community is unanimous in wanting both sides to honour the undertakings that they made. Each side must decide for itself, in pursuit of its own interests, to take the steps which have been laid out.
	The fact is that Israel has not stopped building settlements. More houses, more roads and other settlement infrastructure have been built, despite Israeli undertakings to freeze development; nor has Israel removed settlement outposts, which are illegal even within Israeli law. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was right. The new settlement outposts have sprung up on numerous hilltops. Efforts to remove them have failed or they have quickly been replaced. Therefore, despite repeated Israeli commitments to remove them, the number of outposts is almost exactly the same as it was last June at the time of the Aqaba summit.
	But let us look at the other failures, too. Let us look at the Palestinian side. The Palestinian Authority has not fulfilled its obligations either. There is more that Palestinians can do to tackle security more effectively and to prevent terrorist attacks on Israel. Many will argue that Israeli actions such as shutting down police stations and refusing to allow Palestinian police to wear uniforms have prevented the Palestinians from dealing with these problems.
	My noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld expressed himself very forcefully on this issue and on the issue of Hamas suicide bombings. Those of us who are dealing with these matters on the ground and talking to the Palestinians acknowledge the simple fact that the Palestinians have not done all that they could, despite the restrictions that have been placed upon them. They have not done what they could in reforming the way the security forces are paid, for example; nor have they worked to resolve the question of the tunnels through which weapons are brought; and they have not relinquished their Qassam rockets. That is why we have been talking so intensively to the Palestinians, in order to encourage and support their efforts to tackle the security issues.
	That was on the top of my agenda when I went to Jerusalem and saw Yasser Arafat, and it was on the top of the agenda when Abu Ala'a came to London three weeks ago. He was positive in his response to these issues. Nabil Sha'ath, Saeb Erekat and Salaam Fayyad have also been energetic in trying to make headway on this issue. There also needs to be reform in the way that the Palestinian Authority operates, in order to make it more open, less corrupt and less dependent on personal patronage. The British Government will continue to work hard with the Palestinian Authority on these issues.
	The United Kingdom Government played a leading role in the development of the road map and pushed hard to get it agreed by all sides. We have also been heavily engaged in encouraging progress and pressing both sides to fulfil their obligations to it. Whenever I travel to the region, or speak to visitors from the region here in London, they are unanimous in their wholehearted recognition of the commitment of this Government—including the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary—to work hard for peace in the Middle East.
	We set our hand to this task, and I freely admit that it has not been a good start. But we must not lose hope. In the current climate it is difficult to find positive signs to cling to. However, I do not think that the picture is as bleak as that portrayed my noble friend Lord Desai.
	A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friends Lord Turnberg and Lord Mitchell, were concerned about the barrier. I will say a few words on that matter.
	Israel has legitimate security concerns. It believes that the barrier will enhance Israeli security. The state has a right—and its citizens have a right as individuals—to that security. I agree on that point with my noble friend Lord Janner of Braunstone. We have to be clear on this matter, not only in Tel Aviv—where it is easy to be clear—but as clear in Damascus, Jerusalem and Hebron as we would be in London or Paris.
	The route of the barrier is the problem. We believe that the route is unlawful because it is on the wrong side of the 1967 line. Security may mean separating Jewish settlements from Arab towns—as my noble friend Lord Janner implied—but I find it hard to see a realistic explanation for cutting through the heart of a Palestinian community, as it does in the Abu Dis district.
	I hope that the barrier helps security because there is a heavy price being paid for it—in the destruction of precious agricultural land and in limiting access for some Palestinians to their land and water supply. In some areas it has created enclaves, cutting off Palestinian towns from their surrounding villages and drawing a seemingly arbitrary line that separates families from each other and makes it even more difficult for people to access basic services, such as schools and hospitals.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, thought that our position on the case before the ICJ was inconsistent. I have been more polite on that matter than he was to us. We and our European partners have stated our belief that it was not right to pursue the matter at the International Court of Justice, because in order to go there we should have to have the consent of both sides. Otherwise the International Court of Justice would be being asked to arbitrate on a political conflict.
	We have, however, made it very clear—not least to the International Court of Justice itself—that we believe that the barrier is unlawful. I am pleased to report that in some areas parts of the barrier have been removed or building work has been suspended. Within Israel voices are growing for building the future stages along the green line. We should support those heavily.
	A more recent development was touched on by my noble friend Lord Turnberg. That is the proposal by the Israeli Prime Minister Sharon for a unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Like my noble friend, I believe that this is a serious plan. Mr Sharon's advisers and Ministers have been very busy over the past few weeks travelling to capitals to discuss the idea and gauge reactions to it. In some ways, it could be argued that it has succeeded in drawing the United States back into an active role in the Middle East peace process.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, may be right in implying that the US preoccupation elsewhere in the recent past has distracted from what is going on in Israel/Palestine. I assure her that they are now engaged on this point.
	The plan is by no means finalised. It is not yet clear precisely what it might entail. At the moment it seems that the proposal will entail withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and possibly parts of the West Bank. But there are unanswered questions on the future of the northern settlements in Gaza. We have not yet heard precise plans for where the Israeli settlers would go, upon withdrawal.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked whether the plan is a positive or negative development, we hope—and at the moment it is a hope—that it will be a positive one. We do not know whether all, or just some, of the Israeli defence forces would withdraw. Clearly, a full withdrawal of troops, without prior co-ordination, could leave the Occupied Territories in chaos. Hamas has already stated its willingness to fill any void left by IDF withdrawal. That is an offer that is not entirely welcome to the Palestinian Authority, let alone to anybody else.
	Finally, the timing is not clear for any real developments on the ground, although given the process required within Israel to enable such a move, it seems unlikely that we will see practical progress much before the end of this year.
	All of this has, of course, created its own tensions within Israel. Prime Minister Sharon risks losing the support of his right-wing coalition partners. If that happens, he will need to look for alternative support. Much will, naturally, depend on how the proposals for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories are carried through. The British Government believe that this must be in line with the road map, that it must get us closer to the vision of two states—Israel and Palestine—living side by side in peace, and that it should not prejudice the final status negotiations on the borders.
	Any withdrawal needs to be co-ordinated with the Palestinian Authority and the international community. A unilateral path is not a practical option. The Palestinian Authority should also be gearing itself up to respond positively to the opportunity that may be presented by Israel through its withdrawal from Gaza, and that it has to be building its capacity to take responsibility for security and law and order if those areas are vacated. The United Kingdom is prepared to help the Palestinians build up their civil peace capacity and will provide advice and technical assistance to the Palestinian police.
	The EU also has a role here. Last week the European Council agreed to examine the requirements for further assistance. The great concern is the continuing level of violence. The Government have condemned this loudly and consistently. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, said, we have frozen the assets of Hamas and we shall continue to try and persuade our partners in Europe to do the same.
	We understand Israel's duty to defend itself against such atrocities as suicide bombing. But, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear, Israel needs to make sure that its response is within the bounds of international law. I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that targeted killings are unacceptable and unlawful and are unlikely to achieve their objectives.
	My noble friend Lord Mitchell asked me to explain this point. Sheikh Yassin was no friend of peace. I acknowledge that a person can be as wicked from a wheelchair as they can from anywhere else. But Israel is a democracy under the rule of law. There was something of this in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We expect better of Israel. We expect Israel to uphold the standards that we hold dear.
	I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Mitchell said about the Geneva accord and the brave and sensible way in which the Israelis and the Palestinians have been able to come together. I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about the humanitarian and economic situation in the Occupied Territories being bleak. Poverty has increased dramatically since the intifada began. During the past two years the Palestinian economy has shrunk by half. Real incomes are 48 per cent lower than in September 2000, leaving 60 per cent of Palestinians living on less than the UN poverty threshold of two dollars and 10 cents a day.
	I shall answer the specific points made by my noble friend Lord Turnberg. Emergency donor support has helped to prevent total economic collapse; the UK alone has spent between £30 million and £40 million in each of the past three years and the European Commission disbursed more than 270 million euros in 2003. But longer-term economic recovery is dependent on the lifting of closures and the free movement of goods and people. Yes, we are raising those points in relation to the World Food Programme, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, directly with the Israeli Government.
	I strongly agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, about going forward and trying to find a partnership for the future in relation to Palestine between Europe and the United States of America. We want to work with our G8 partners in examining measures to reconstruct and revitalise the Palestinian economy when the time is right.
	I turn to other issues now. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, said in his critique of the military action in Iraq, and in particular the link that he made between military action and the fight against terror. His point was very different from the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who reminded the House of his argument that terrorist organisations had links with the Saddam Hussein regime. I am sure he will recall that about this time last year we disagreed on that point on a number of occasions. However, I agree with him strongly that there are strong grounds for believing now that Iraq has a very real future.
	Ten days ago I returned from Iraq, my previous visit having been towards the end of last year. I saw a marked difference in Iraq from my previous visit. There was more confidence, more focus and more steadfastness among Iraqis about their future. There are only about 100 days until the hand over takes place. Already more than 50 per cent of Iraqis believe that their lives are better than they were under Saddam Hussein and more than 70 per cent believe that life will improve further still.
	I was struck by the extraordinary steadfastness of many Iraqis in the face of the violence. They reflected a stoic and determined community, with eyes firmly fixed on the elections next year, the new constitution and the improving standards in their schools, hospitals and in civil society. In the three days that I was there, almost everyone whom I met thanked the British Government and the British people for our action in Iraq. In press interviews, some of which were fairly robust and to the point, not a single person raised the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Instead they raised issues such as their future. They wanted to talk about trade, investment, education and the hard work that would be needed over the next 18 months.
	My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis was right to say that it will take time to achieve all of this. There is no doubt about that. June 30 will be a very important date. However, there will be other important dates in the next 18 months: the elections in January, the drawing up of the constitution, the referendum on that constitution and the next elections next year. Iraq will emerge as probably the most democratic, the most forward-looking state in the region with well educated people, Shia, Sunni, Turkoman and Kurd living together side by side in one state, with normalised relationships with their neighbours.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, spoke of the Arab desire for development, democracy, prosperity, improving their economies and dealing with the serious problems of poverty, human rights, security and terrorism. I agree with him. I agree that those are huge issues and ones that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary set out cogently in his speech on the subject a few weeks ago.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, asked how far the Middle East extended. I believe I was asked that question a few weeks ago in your Lordships' House. To be frank, I am of the school of thought that it extends as far as the Arab Middle East. Trying to extend it further towards Afghanistan, towards Pakistan, simply undermines, rather than reinforces, the work that we are trying to undertake at the moment. We have been discussing those issues for quite some time.
	In my view there is a real appetite for taking forward those issues, but on the basis that reform comes from within a country. It cannot be imposed from outside. The one-size-fits-all idea on reform is simply not tenable in the Arab world. Dialogue and partnership are the right ways forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Mitchell were quite right to remind the House that the UNDP report on the Middle East was a report by Arabs and for Arabs. The Gulf, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the key players, but there are very important and crucial roles for Syria and Egypt.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked what this country was able to do in that respect. One reason why I have been absent from your Lordships' House for a few days virtually every week for the past few weeks is that I have been discussing not only Iraq and the Middle East peace process with the countries in the region, but also the issues concerned with reform in the Maghreb countries, in Morocco, in Tunisia and in some of the smaller countries of the region such as Qatar and Bahrain as well as the bigger powers. I have seen all the Arab League ambassadors together to discuss the issues and I shall be seeing them again in smaller groups.
	I am trying to practice what I preach—"preach" is a nasty word, but that is a good formula. It involves consultation, discussion and partnership to discuss a wide range of issues. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said: if we are to make any real progress we must talk to those with whom we disagree as well as to those with whom we agree. Perhaps later this year we may consider a broader-based discussion involving noble Lords and others and those involved.
	I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that it is such a pity that the summit collapsed. I believe that was a lost opportunity for an important statement not only on the Middle East peace process, but on the issue of Arab reform. I advise the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, not to spring to conclusions as to why it collapsed. A number of different reasons have been put forward in the region.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, focused attention on Iran, Syria and Libya. I thank him for his remarks about the Government's efforts in relation to those three countries. Of course, he is right. I hope he reminded the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about how different our policy has been from that of our friends in the United States.
	In answer to the specific point made by my noble friend Lord Turnberg, the Secretary of State has persevered with remarkable stamina in relation to the nuclear issues in Iran, visiting five times in the past three years. That dialogue continues through the IAEA, bilaterally and of course through the troika that has been set up within the European Union.
	In Syria we continue to try to make the case for further engagement to discuss border security, terrorism and trade. We would like to see a new Syrian-EU agreement, but it must be an agreement that acknowledges the issues that still need to be tackled, including human rights.
	I listened very carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, on Syria. I assure him that the issues that he raised are issues that I too have raised when I have spoken to President Bashar recently. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his remarks about Libya. Like him, I was struck by the support for the Prime Minister's visit that came from the families of those who were killed at Lockerbie and their hopes that the normalising of our relationships with Libya will reveal more about that terrible tragedy. The real message from the Libyan situation has been that the country has turned away from weapons of mass destruction and is turning towards the destruction of its arsenal. We hope that that may inspire others and show them what can be achieved through quiet negotiation rather than through loudspeaker politics.
	I was very taken with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the right reverend Prelate reminded the House of the religious dimension of the Middle East conflict. I confess that I did not agree with the whole analysis of the right reverend Prelate, but I strongly agreed with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the work of the International Centre for Reconciliation and the work of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, and Canon Andrew White through the Alexandria process.
	I have met many of those who are involved. I have met Rabbi Michael Melchior and Sheikh Allal on a number of occasions. I regard both with great respect and with some affection as well. I believe that they are engaged in a genuine effort at reconciliation and that is making a real contribution to the peace effort. I thank my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld for his kind and entirely accurate tribute to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Tel Aviv, Simon McDonald. I pay tribute to the outstanding and dedicated work of our consul-general in Jerusalem, John Jenkins. Both of them lead very able and committed teams of diplomats and we should not forget the locally engaged staff who often work in very difficult circumstances. Those diplomats and their staff have two of the toughest jobs anywhere in the world and they acquit them extraordinarily well.
	I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said about Europe and the need to be proactive this year. I think that we have to stand back from the events of the past few months. We must ask ourselves some honest questions about whether we did enough to support the Abu Masim government. I think we have learned from that by the way that we are now dealing with Abu Ala'a's government. We recognise that there is a real need for help in security but also in other developmental issues. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, was of course right to say that we should try to work in partnership on these points.
	Perhaps my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, were right: 2004 may not be the year for finding the solution we need to the problems in the Middle East, but it is a year for keeping the hope of a solution alive and for some reflection on our own history, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded us. I hope that in doing that we shall not lose sight of the important and practical measures that are needed on the ground, because there is a lot of work to do.
	I recognise that at a time of high tension and violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories, looking ahead to the steps needed for the peace process can be hard. But progress needs vision, courage and a positive approach from leaders on both sides. Both sides need to show clearly that their strategic choice really is for peace; not just to say it at every opportunity, but to take the action that makes us all believe it. That means that difficult compromises will have to be made. But this is the moment for hard decisions. The Israeli Government's plan to withdraw from the settlements could indeed be a breakthrough, if it shows the way towards the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
	However, Israel cannot disengage from the process of seeking a negotiated solution: one side imposing its will on the other will not reach a lasting peace. The Palestinians also face tough decisions. Their society is on the brink of something approaching anarchy in cities like Nablus where law and order is undoubtedly breaking down. This has to be the moment when the Palestinian Authority shows it is serious about security and that wherever it has the capacity to act—and I fully acknowledge that it is not everywhere—it does so.
	Both sides must show that they really are capable of being each other's partners for peace. A failure to return to negotiations now would condemn Israelis and Palestinians to more years of violence and instability. Leaders on both sides owe it to their people to take the initiative and to restore hope that a better life is possible. It will take courage to stand up against the voices that constantly argue for aggression, blame and revenge; but that courage is needed more now than ever before.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may offer my thanks to your Lordships for a very serious, responsible and thoughtful debate. Although there are still substantial differences of opinion in the House, I think that every Peer who has spoken has addressed this terribly difficult issue with a real sense of trying to contribute to a peaceful and lasting outcome.
	A number of noble Lords have suggested, not least the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that we have to recognise that some things take time; in particular, the implantation of any kind of democracy in a culture which is not used to it or accommodated to it. It is also true that there is very little time. One reason for that is that attacks are continually being made on the ground on both sides in this tragic dispute.
	We are indeed at a crucial moment, as a number of noble Lords have said. It is a crucial moment when we could continue the spiral downwards or seize the opportunity and turn it around into something that could be really constructive and helpful. In this context one of the important questions is whether Dr Sharon proposes to withdraw from the West Bank as well as from Gaza, because Gaza on its own is little more than a basket case.
	I offer my very warm thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. We know that she gives a very substantial part of her undoubtedly great energy and thought to the Middle East crisis and to how to move in the right direction. I thank her for the way in which she invariably listens very closely to debate in this House—that is not always true of everybody, but it is certainly true of her—and the way in which she tries very carefully to address every one of the detailed issues raised.
	I conclude simply by saying that I hope the noble Baroness will do her very best to try to make sure that food aid resumes. To add hunger to all the other desperate things in this region of the world might be enough to push even more people over the brink. I should like to thank her and the House as a whole for what I believe has been a very useful and constructive contribution to an extremely difficult problem. I beg to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business of the House: Arrangement of the Order Paper

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the three Motions in the name of my noble friend Lord Filkin be postponed until after the Unstarred Question.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Engineering

Lord Astor of Hever: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether enough is being done within the educational process to attract young engineers to industry, and in particular to the automotive and motorsport industries.
	My Lords, I declare an interest as president, unpaid, of the Motorsport Industry Association. In that position I have become increasingly aware of the decline in numbers of young engineers entering and remaining in the engineering sector, particularly in the automotive industry.
	At present, there are around 800,000 people in the UK employed in the design and manufacture of vehicles and components or in the directly linked supply and distribution chain. The automotive manufacturing sector alone contributes around £9.1 billion to the economy.
	At the heart of Britain's successful automotive manufacturing industry lies the specialised field of motorsport engineering. Motorsport has long been an intrinsic and dominant feature of UK industry, with the UK's "Motorsport Valley" being the world's leading motorsport engineering and services cluster, commanding around 70 per cent of the world market. The motorsport industry has an annual turnover of £4.6 billion and employs around 40,000 people, of whom 25,000 are highly trained engineers.
	This weekend British engineering will be showcased to 200 million television viewers at the inaugural Bahrain Formula 1 grand prix. British companies have played a major role in the construction of this unique circuit, and in the whole staging of Formula 1. Precision engineered components and methods developed for the motorsport industry are increasingly exploited by the mainstream, mass producing automotive industry. As such, major automotive companies have been keen to cement their links with motorsport in order to be associated with its popularity and transferable technology.
	The kudos and popularity inherent in motorsport also helps to bolster interest in engineering as a whole. Recently, the UK has suffered a decline in interest in technology-based degrees, and a reduction in the numbers of students going on to pursue a career in engineering, despite the increasing needs of UK employers for skilled engineers and technical staff. To help arrest this alarming trend and encourage students into engineering, several universities and colleges have initiated motorsport based degree courses. They include Cranfield University, which provides an MSc in motorsports engineering and management, with an available bursary funded by Williams Fl. Oxford Brookes University offers an undergraduate degree in automobile engineering, as does Swansea Institute, with the world's first BSc in motorsport.
	Higher and further education have also recognised that motorsport is a powerful attracter of young people towards the engineering sector and have developed courses to cater for that demand. In the 2004–05 session there will be 15 universities and colleges offering 41 motorsport engineering or management courses. Three further institutions have masters degree provisions. All these new courses were initiated during the past five years by the MIA.
	In the commercial sector, new initiatives have been implemented to address the disparity between the skills required by employers and those taught by educators. Ford has adopted a unique approach to this problem, and has formed an agreement with the universities of East London and Loughborough to teach accredited vocational foundation degrees to its employees. While these educational undertakings are commendable in using the pull of motorsport as a tool, these efforts do not appear to strike at the heart of the matter. Is it not the case that the public's perception of what an engineering qualification requires, and what it qualifies a person to do, is the real issue that must be resolved, not simply the provision of more courses?
	Professor Chris Taylor, the president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, believes that there is a,
	"Shortage of role models to promote the excitement of engineering",
	and that,
	"We don't do enough to enthuse about our subject".
	Professor Taylor further observes that salaries are not necessarily the defining factor, and,
	"In reality salaries within the engineering sector are comparable to those of other sectors".
	The skills that engineers can offer other sectors, such as the finance industry, mean that competition for these skills remains fierce. Professor Taylor concludes that:
	"The growth of the finance and management sectors have seen a steady decline in the number of engineering graduates remaining in engineering. The UK is inherently different from other countries—we are the exception. The fundamental difference goes back to the Industrial Revolution; power never resided in the hands of the engineers".
	In an attempt to reverse the current trend whereby fewer students obtain higher level engineering qualifications and fewer engineering graduates remain in the field, a number of initiatives have been proposed by the Government. The Roberts report, SET for Success: the Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematical Skills, commissioned by the Treasury, the Department for Education and Skills, and the DTI, outlines the skills shortages in the sector. The findings demonstrated emerging shortages in the supply of high level maths, physics, chemistry and engineering skills at all levels of education, due to fewer students taking these subjects and an increased demand from employers. The report outlined the areas where increased Government spending is required—these recommendations include increasing the level of remuneration offered to teachers in shortage subjects, improving the public perception of science, engineering and technology, and providing funding for better equipment in educational laboratories. The report was published in April 2002. Can the Minister confirm what progress has been made since the objectives stated in the report were first proposed?
	A further Government measure intended to improve opportunities and funding within the engineering sector was proposed in October 2002. In this instance, the motorsport industry was the subject of a DTI competitiveness panel review. As a result of this review, £16 million was made available for motorsport business opportunities. The Motorsport Development Board was assembled in November 2003 to implement recommendations made by the DTI panel. A Government Motorsport Unit was established to link this board to the Government, which has only recently sanctioned two new projects, namely the establishment of the Motorsport Academy and the development of the Learning Grid concept.
	The Engineering and Technology Board and the Motorsport Industry Association will work together to deliver the Learning Grid—a series of motorsport-themed educational initiatives and competitions to promote engineering careers to children and students up to and including higher education level. Formula Student is one such initiative being run by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and it provides an ideal introduction to a career in engineering. These initiatives must be urgently delivered.
	In December 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, announced that a £2.4 million contract to run a new national resource centre promoting women in science, engineering and technology had been awarded to a consortium led by Bradford College and Sheffield Hallam University, including Cambridge University and the Open University. I warmly welcome this proposal, and other similar initiatives, and I pay tribute to the work done by my noble friend Lady Platt, patron of the WISE campaign, which this year celebrates 20 years encouraging women to enter science and engineering degrees.
	A further initiative, launched by the Government in December 2003, concerns an innovation plan which outlines details of how to exploit the UK's expertise and develop new ideas, particularly in relation to new technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology and IT. Businesses, academics and innovators have all been consulted to provide a framework that is to be underpinned by £150 million, including £90 million allocated for nanotechnology. Is it not the case that the increasingly extensive list of units, bodies and panels established under these various initiatives serve only to diffuse interest and funding? This is a sector that already has a number of bodies with which engineers themselves have difficulty keeping track.
	The task of encouraging young men back into science and engineering-based education and commerce is a huge challenge. The reputation of engineering in this country is still undervalued by the public at large, and is only partially improved by the glamour injected from its association with the global success in motorsport. Over 50 per cent of young people associate engineering with a dirty working environment, and motorsport, if properly used, can attract young people into clean types of engineering.
	It is a vital strategy to promote and finance motorsport, in the hope that some of the sheen will rub off on the engineering sector as a whole—although this strategy alone will not be enough. We must ensure that the promising initiatives that have been put in place to educate children and adults alike are pursued urgently with immediate effect, and funded fully, so that the fallacy that engineering is a dirty, antiquated industry is dispelled once and for all.

Lord Paul: My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this important debate so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever.
	Noble Lords will be aware of my interest in engineering and manufacturing, as chairman of the Caparo Group. We constantly hear about the doom and gloom in UK engineering and manufacturing. Although times have been tough, there are successes that must be highlighted. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, has already mentioned that the UK automotive manufacturing sector contributes around £9.1 billion added value to the economy. It also accounts for 1.1 per cent of the GDP; 6.2 per cent of the manufacturing added value and 9.5 per cent of the total UK export of goods. The UK is home to the world's most successful motorsport industry, as well as a range of smaller producers serving specialist markets such as sports and luxury cars.
	The automotive industry is a pivotal part of the UK manufacturing sector. Automotive firms are leaders in global best practice in many areas of manufacturing, and provide a key source of improvement for the manufacturing sector as a whole. Britain leads the world in advanced technology in motorsport engineering. Constructors include McLaren, Williams, Benetton, Jordan, BAR and Reynard. Engine designers and manufacturers, such as Cosworth, Ilmor and Hart—all based in the UK—meet the requirements of teams in Formula 1, Cart, Formula 3000 and other prestigious international events.
	The UK motorsport engineering and services industry has an estimated £4.6 billion annual turnover, of which over 50 per cent is export sales. The Government have rightly supported this key sector, with an announcement last year of £16 million to help to sustain and develop the UK motorsport cluster. This money will implement the recommendations of the Motor Sport Competitiveness Panel, one of which is for the creation of a motorsport academy to improve the skills of the industry.
	One of the main problems in attracting young people to engineering and manufacturing has been their poor image. Industry has a role to play in reversing that image. I am delighted that many companies up and down the country, together with various organisations, are working hard in all sectors of education to demonstrate how rewarding a career in that sector can be.
	I highlight in particular two organisation: F1 in Schools; and Formula Student, which is for students in further and higher education. These organisations, which are heavily dependent on companies and organisations for financial support, provide students with a real-life exercise in design, manufacture, and the business elements of making a car, giving them opportunities to work as a team, under pressure and to tight time-scales.
	An important part of the Formula Student experience is to develop talented engineers, many of whom will in time take up challenging roles in the global motor industry. Those of us who work in engineering and manufacturing know just how important it is to maintain a supply of high quality of engineers into our companies and organisations. Regrettably, many of us have been concerned for a long time by the evidence that engineering courses at universities have had difficulty filling their places and, arguably, have at times appeared to struggle to demonstrate the attractions of careers in engineering against more obvious attractions in other professions.
	Earlier in my speech, I said that one of the reasons that young people are put off entering engineering is the perceived image of the sector. I believe that three other issues need to be addressed in order to attract more young people and people from different backgrounds. However, first, perhaps I may congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on announcing recently a long-term strategy for supporting British science and engineering—an announcement welcomed wholeheartedly by industry.
	The first point I should like the Minister to consider is that of careers advice and guidance. The business community has been for a while extremely concerned that not all young people are receiving the right amount of guidance when choosing qualifications and careers. The Connexions Service was primarily set up to concentrate its efforts on those at risk of disengagement from education. However, the time required to address the issues that most disengaged individuals present means there is little or no resource for the majority of young people who are engaged fully with the education process.
	Industry requires all young people to receive timely, accurate and unbiased advice about engineering and manufacturing opportunities and vocational education options. Given the number of Connexions advisers and the total number of students they should be supporting, each student would receive only around 20 minutes' guidance per year if the time were evenly distributed. Resources must be found to increase the number of advisers and the quality of the advice they are able to provide.
	My second point is on the modern apprenticeship programme. The combination of vocational education, on-the-job training, linked with rigorous workplace assessment and employed status, is a well-recognised and respected route to development of high-level skills within the industry. The limitation of funding for modern apprentices to the under-25s continues to be a problem for engineering and manufacturing. Employers already commit significant resources to apprenticeship programmes, with some advanced modern apprenticeships costing as much as £50,000 over four years. I call on the Government to fund modern apprenticeships for all ages at the nationally agreed 16 to 18 rate, currently around £14,000 for an Advanced MA.
	My third point relates to the bleak and unwelcoming environment which is found in many of the UK manufacturing areas. Many of those industrial regions are rundown and depressing locations in which to live and work; and such derelict areas are not appealing to our young graduates, or anyone else for that matter. I believe that the Government should work in partnership with local authorities to regenerate those areas so that they are more attractive places for people to be.
	Engineering and manufacturing are key to the future prosperity of this country. High-tech, high-value and high-productivity engineering and manufacturing require well-educated, pragmatic and experienced people—young people—the future of our country. I want to see more young people, more women, and more ethnic minorities attracted to and involved in this exciting and challenging sector.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor on initiating this debate. Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paul, with his great experience and expertise in the field of engineering. I am sure the Government would do well to listen to his recommendations.
	I wish to concentrate on the motorsport industry. It is a considerable British success story, as we have heard. Vital to the continuance of that success is a supply of talented young engineers. We should bear in mind in the debate at all times that motorsport is above all competitive and international. Talents, whether drivers, engineers or financiers, can move freely around the world, as can the businesses. However, it so happens that the UK is the world leader in motorsport. Even with the performance of a certain German over the past few years driving a certain Italian car that is still very true. Indeed, Ferrari as a team has had over the years a heavy British influence in design and engineering.
	I understand that in 34 of the past 43 years, British teams have won the Formula 1 World Championship. But motorsport is about so much more than Formula 1. The United Kingdom has had a great record in motorcycle racing, saloon cars and rallying all of which are important disciplines; and in the starter motorsports, for example, carting, through which so many of the great drivers have started.
	Of the 11 teams which took part in the Formula 1 series in 2003, eight are based in Britain and all the others employ British engineers, managers and British built components. Professor Michael Porter of Harvard University said:
	"The UK is global leader in the sport and business of motorsport—the success of which is based on the long heritage of motorsport in the UK".
	Slightly closer to home, we must not forget that the former Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, Lord Hesketh, took his team to Formula 1 victory in Zandvoort in 1975.
	We have heard about the so-called "Motorsport Valley". I suspect that it is more an association of companies rather than a geographical feature: I was unable to find it in the atlas. It is remarkable that the cluster of world-leading firms are gathered together. There is a community of firms with Jordan, BAR, Jaguar, Renault, Williams, McLaren and Minardi. We have also heard about the engine builders, Cosworth and Ilmor. The rally teams with such English-sounding names as Mitsubishi, Subaru and Hyundai have all chosen to base their teams in the UK.
	I suggest that the industry is important in its own right, even though it is, in the great scheme of things, small and highly specialised. It is also important as a centrepiece of the wider automotive and general engineering sector and, I suggest, as a champion of research and development. Williams, for example, states that its R&D spend is in excess of 40 per cent, which compares with the industry average—taking into account all industry in the UK—of only just over 2.2 per cent.
	All of this sounds tremendous, and we can stand here and congratulate the country on this great achievement, but I suggest that complacency could be extremely dangerous. 1 has to think only of the transformation of the British motorcycle industry—from global master to lame duck within a very few years—because Honda, Kawasaki and other manufacturers suddenly demonstrated that to manufacture engines that were smooth, powerful, reliable and did not leak oil was not an impossibility. Motorsport engineering hubs are developing around Cologne—which has attracted a 500 million dollar investment from Toyota—as well as in Italy, France and, of course, the USA.
	So what about the role of government? Motorsport is essentially about competition, and the last thing that is needed is for governments to intervene where they should not. We do not want the DTI designing the next engine any more than we want the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport fronting the British entry in the Eurovision song contest. But there are some areas in which the Government should take a strong interest, and one is education. Equally valid is to look at what the motorsport industry can do for the wider engineering sector as well as what the Government can do for motorsport.
	The industry requires a supply of very high quality engineers. There has been considerable concern from the industry in the past about where these young people would come from. There has been co-operation between the representative body—the Motorsport Industry Association—as we have heard, and the Government, notably with the launch of the Motorsport Academy, as described by my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Paul.
	Most sport has a huge advantage over, say, sanitary engineering in the glamour and money stakes, and no doubt there are many more applicants than can possibly be employed, so one might wonder what the problem is. However, what the sector really needs is a healthy and vibrant general engineering industry from which it can attract great talent. I understand that engineering attracts only 2 per cent of graduates in the UK, against some 12 per cent in the United States.
	Motorsport clearly has a role in attracting students into the wider field from which they may—or, probably, may not—go into this highly specialised discipline. The industry can be used as a tool to promote engineering more widely. For example, five years ago, Swansea University had three undergraduates for its engineering course. It took the rebranding step of calling it a motorsport engineering course, and had 300 applicants. That demonstrates the power of the petrol-heads. It is a two-way street.
	This debate is an excellent opportunity to ask the Government what importance they attach to the engineering sector more widely and to more specialised fields in particular. What tangible results are they hoping to achieve with their £16 million of funding in support of the industry? What are the deliverables? How will the success or otherwise of these schemes be judged? Perhaps most importantly, how do they propose to leverage the success of the industry to maximum effect? How are they trying to co-ordinate their activities in the automotive sector with those in related fields, such as aerospace?
	I make no apology for concentrating on a highly specialised field this evening. We should celebrate and make the most of this country's excellence on the track and in the wind tunnel, in software and in the workshop. We should make every effort to safeguard our competitiveness.

Lord Methuen: My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate on whether enough is being done within our education system to encourage young engineers into industry and into motorsport.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, have given us impressive statistics on the impact of motorsport on the UK economy and the support it has had within our universities. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paul, on the UK's motor industry's contribution to the UK economy.
	Motorsport offers an extreme testing ground for new developments and innovation which subsequently feed through to benefit the whole motor industry. The current reliability, long life and safety of the modern motor vehicle owe a lot to this approach. However, I shall concentrate on education issues.
	We have a general problem about the training of engineers in this country. Traditionally, there have been two routes into the profession: first, via a university degree, followed by membership of the appropriate chartered institute. Often in the past, students were sponsored by firms, especially by the nationalised industries or by the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces also had their own dedicated colleges: the Royal Naval Engineering College at Manuden in Plymouth—now closed—the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham and the Royal Air Force College Cranwell. Many firms have withdrawn their sponsorship packages or limit them to paying the upfront £1,125 tuition fee. Sandwich courses are much less frequent than of old; I certainly benefited from doing such a course, as a practical hands-on engineer.
	The second route into the profession is via the work-based apprenticeship starting at 16 or 17, with day release to the appropriate further education college, followed by a part-time college-based training for an HND for those who had the capability and wished to pursue a higher qualification. In due course, this could lead to a further full-time course and to membership of a chartered institute.
	While both routes still exist, neither is attracting the number of entrants we need. The number of engineering students was down by 7 per cent between 1995 and 2000, a period when university enrolments went up by 12 per cent. Perhaps the Minister has more up-to-date figures. I hope they show an improvement.
	As I said in column 734 of Hansard in the debate on British industry and the global economy on 3 March, smaller university departments are closing. In replying, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, acknowledged the seriousness of the situation.
	Traditional apprenticeships have largely disappeared and been replaced by the modern apprenticeship. The Government are trying to build this up so that about 28 per cent of school leavers are trained under the scheme. A foundation modern apprenticeship requires one to two years' training and achieves a level 2 NVQ. The Advanced Modern Apprenticeship is the craftsman equivalent; it requires three to four years' training and achieves a level 3 NVQ.
	While the Government claim they are close to achieving their 28 per cent target, many participants drop out before completion and, in particular, relatively few continue through to complete the full craft qualification, the Advanced Modern Apprenticeship. Most AMA course are college-based and many colleges have great difficulty in finding suitable industrial employers to take on the apprentices for work experience. Notable exceptions are large employers such as Ford, BAe Systems and Rolls-Royce. Far too many companies rely on someone else to do the training and then poach them by offering them higher salaries which those who do the training cannot afford.
	The problem is, how do we attract more young people into the engineering field? There are fundamental difficulties which prevail in our education system. Science and mathematics are seen as difficult subjects, tough A-levels. Maths is an essential prerequisite for engineering, but its teaching is in crisis in our schools, with an ageing workforce and insufficient recruitment to replace those leaving or retiring. Increasing numbers of pupils—now over 30 per cent in maintained secondary schools—are being taught by non-graduates and/or those with no specialist qualification. The whole thing is becoming a vicious circle. To quote Ray d'Inverno in a recent TES article:
	"Because the teacher isn't very good, pupils don't like doing maths, so fewer of them come to university. In turn fewer go into teaching, and the whole thing gets worse".
	The result is that poor maths teaching means fewer pupils able to cope with science subjects at advanced level, let alone at university. Pupils obviously wish to maximise their chances of high grades for university entrance. The school staff, in turn, are anxious to maximise their position in the league tables. All that conspires to make maths, physics and chemistry—the hard subjects—less popular than other subjects. We need inspired teachers to inspire our children, and we have too few of them.
	February 2004 saw the publication of the Smith report, Making Mathematics Count. The report calls for a number of measures including paying off student loans, introducing differential pay for maths graduates, and the extension of programmes using students and post-graduates as assistants and mentors in school, in an attempt to reverse the decline. The same TES article from which I quoted earlier commented on the success of the undergraduate ambassador scheme promoted by Sam Singh, which involved some 28 students. Schemes of this nature and others using people actively involved in industry going into schools, and reciprocal visits to industry, enable our children to see the benefits of an engineering or scientific career.
	Can the Minister indicate to what extent the Government agree with the diagnosis of the report, and whether they intend to implement any of its recommendations? Would the Minister also agree that we are perhaps offering too wide a choice of subjects at A-level, leading to a further reduction in those who might otherwise take up maths and science options? There are other considerations, however. First, we need a balanced workforce of craftsmen and professionals; the one cannot operate successfully without the other. Secondly, we need to ensure that the status and salaries of the professional chartered engineers and scientists are commensurate with their positions and peers in other professions. Many of our engineering graduates gravitate to accountancy, financial and business management at inflated salaries, denying the engineering profession their talents, and reducing the pool of engineers.
	Another point is the failure of some companies to provide a proper career path for their professionals; such paths exist for the managers, but not for those who wish to design and create, and whose expertise may be wasted in the management stream. During my time in IBM, senior professional salaries were on a par with those of senior managers, which is as it ought to be.
	Finally, careers in engineering are seen as boring. Perhaps that is an area where motor sport has an edge on the rest of us! I had 45 years in engineering and enjoyed most of it. The satisfaction of seeing one's design come to fruition takes some beating, but we have to convince our children. Engineering degrees are usually a four year course, leading to a Master of Engineering degree. That means an extra year at university, extra fees and extra debt. Are the Government confident that the introduction of top-up fees will not bias students yet further against the choice of an engineering career? Will it again encourage those graduating in engineering to go into the City? It is interesting to note that the University of Berlin is wooing UK students with free tuition. I hope that the Minister takes note.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I very much welcome this short debate and congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever on providing an opportunity to discuss whether enough is being done to encourage young engineers to come into industry.
	The term "engineering" incorporates many different components within one larger industry. These sectors include aeronautical engineering—developing future air travel—automotive and motor sport engineering, among newer disciplines such as nanotechnology, which challenge the more traditional classical approaches to engineering problems. As diversification within the engineering sector occurs primarily at an educational level, the actual process of education becomes increasingly important.
	I am particularly pleased that this debate has focused on the educational and training aspect of the industry. There are many career paths that potential engineers are able to follow, yet those opportunities are not highly publicised. Modern apprenticeships offer an alternative route for those who do not wish to embark upon full-time study. They allow young engineers to earn money while completing their vocational and theoretical training. Initiatives such as those should be welcomed and encouraged. However, such schemes are often perceived as a step down from the traditional academic route, despite providing a challenging and enjoyable alternative.
	A solid background in science and mathematics is an essential prerequisite at GCSE or A-level for any youngster wishing to train as an engineer. I note that earlier this month the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to bring science to the attention of the public. In reply the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Sainsbury stated:
	"There is unfortunately a shift from mathematics, physics and chemistry".—[Official Report, 16/3/04; col. 136.]
	What is the reason for that decline? Would the Minister agree that such a decline will impact directly on the engineering industry and that action needs to be taken to address this predicament?
	The status of the engineering profession within this country is not comparable, and never has been, with other countries such as Germany or the United States or Spain, where professional engineers are regarded as highly as doctors or lawyers. Indeed, in Spain an engineer is called Ingeniero, just as doctors in this country are addressed by the title Doctor. Perhaps that would be a good thing to do in this country. That said, even those countries are suffering a decline in interest from those wishing to train as engineers. Interest in this diverse and rewarding career must be stimulated to ensure that the decline in numbers entering engineering does not fall to a level that is detrimental to the industry's future.
	Concerns have been raised about the future of the engineering industry in the UK, and a solution needs to be achieved to prevent an exodus of manufacturing overseas. It is imperative that the UK retains a vibrant and strong manufacturing base in all sectors of engineering, in particular in areas of research and development where we are so strong.
	There are many bodies and initiatives that work to assist in the development and sustainability of the engineering industry. Founded in 1976, the Royal Academy of Engineering promotes the engineering and technological welfare of this country, primarily focusing on the relationship between engineering, technology and quality of life. The academy also provides a voice between Parliament and the UK's engineering community. The most high-profile sector of engineering, after defence, is that of motor sport, which is highly popular with all ages in society and provides an excellent medium through which the inventiveness and expertise of talented engineers can be demonstrated.
	Many companies belonging to the MIA make some parts for vintage cars. Vintage car racing is the fastest growth area of motor racing; I, personally, believe that it is by far the most exciting to watch. The Motorsport Industry Association and its associate members actively encourage participation by students in the motor sport industry through funding initiatives such as "formula student" and "formula schools". The skills needed by engineers—good spatial awareness, cogent thought processes and an ability in science and mathematics—are transferable through all engineering sectors. Yet a recent MORI poll for the Engineering and Marine Training Authority showed that more than half of young people associate engineering with an unclean working environment rather than the cleaner, demanding disciplines such as design engineering.
	In March 2001, the Government commissioned a review to examine the supply of scientists and engineers into the UK. The Roberts report SET for Success; The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills was published in April 2002 and sets out a number of recommendations to encourage the growth of science and engineering innovation in the UK. The main recommendations once again reflect the decline in the adoption of science subjects in higher education and university. On publication of the report, Sir Gareth Roberts stated that:
	"The UK has a strong scientific tradition . . . which in the past has not always translated into economic benefit. To do this effectively we need highly skilled scientists and engineers capable of matching the best in the world".
	In responding to the report's recommendations, Paul Boateng stated:
	"Sir Gareth's report is important in identifying further ways of boosting the contribution that science can make to improving productivity and growth".
	My noble friend Lord Astor asked the Minister whether he could clarify the progress that has been made since that report was first published. I echo this request, particularly in relation to careers in engineering.
	One organisation that has recognised the importance of education for the future is the charity Young Engineers. This organisation, funded solely through business-led initiatives and projects, aims to encourage children of all ages, including primary school children, to consider a career in engineering through competitions and after-school clubs. These clubs spark the interest of girls as much as boys; at present, approximately 40 per cent of participants in the scheme are female. The main emphasis is on fun but importance is also placed on the relevance of engineering in people's everyday lives. Technical skills provide only part of this learning experience. Students are given the opportunity to develop their core skills such as communication, numeracy and teamwork.
	However, the charity is desperately under-funded. Despite running nation-wide initiatives in 1,700 schools to 58,000 pupils, Young Engineers has only four members of staff and receives most of its revenue from four main sponsors. Organisations such as Young Engineers should be seen as central to the debate concerning improvements in the engineering education process. While we welcome recent government initiatives, such as the unit to promote science, engineering and technology to women, further action is required if a long-term solution to the overall problem is to be reached.
	There appears to be a consensus throughout the industry that, in the main, not enough is being done to stimulate the interest of our future engineers and to raise the profile and status of the profession, despite the commendable work of bodies such as Young Engineers. The industry needs to work in partnership to address the many problems that it faces and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for introducing what has been a very well informed and interesting debate. All the contributions will repay reading after this debate by noble Lords who are not present because we are discussing an area of great importance to the nation. There is no doubt that the issues of skills shortages and our lower levels of productivity in comparison to other nations need to be addressed and have been a salient point of the British economy for many decades. We need a concerted strategy to improve this situation. There is no doubt at all that engineering is one of the more important dimensions of this.
	As noble Lords have rightly emphasised this evening, motorsport plays an important part in this. It is not just the conspicuous success of motorsport, which has been adduced on a number of sides. In very many dimensions, it adds glamour to engineering. It is the fact that, because of that relationship and because it is held in high regard by so many of our young people, we have a route by which we can address them on the desirability of following engineering careers through various routes. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who described the routes that had obtained in the past to produce high-level engineers and technicians with technical skills. We know that we must be more imaginative today and have wider ranges of opportunities because we are aware that not enough engineers have come forward in the more recent past. There is no doubt that motorsport plays its part. I play tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for his role as president of the MIA. The work of that body in developing initiatives, on which I shall comment in a moment, that help to fill the gap that has opened up in certain areas of our engineering provision, gaps which are partially the result of increased opportunities in other areas.
	The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, invited me to reduce A-level opportunities in some subjects. I do not think that that would be a suitable response to the problem but I appreciate the fact that we must make the sciences, mathematics and developing engineering skills more attractive to young people in order to improve skill levels in those areas. I have no doubt that the initiatives that have been suggested this evening would help to a considerable degree.
	I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Paul for identifying how crucial this issue is to the broader economy. I also agree with him that there is a pronounced regional dimension to the skills issue. We recognise that, with regard to certain aspects of motorsports, skills are concentrated in the valley that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, had great difficulty identifying, although he knows that a great deal of this activity takes place in the area that goes roughly westwards from Northamptonshire towards Oxfordshire. Motorsports do produce opportunities for young people and put a face upon engineering that we need.
	One of the aspects that has come out of the debate—I think it was first mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor—is the question of the limited number of young women who go into engineering. I have one or two optimistic and encouraging statistics to present to the House. The number of women qualifying in engineering skills in higher education is increasing, while the number is going the other way for men, but noble Lords will recognise that we are starting from a rather low base with regard to women engineers. That is an enormous pity. Modern engineering has so many facets—the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, brought out the excitement of seeing projects through to fulfilment—that are exciting in terms of achievement and are also light-years away from the grime, dust, oil and, perhaps, smoke, of yesteryear. Engineering opportunities ought to be attractive to young women.
	I went to some very interesting electronic engineering courses, which are the way in which people learn to become competent with support systems for music gigs. That is an extremely attractive area and is different from motorsport. We all know how young people can be switched on to music. To my complete horror, every single participant on those courses, with very attractive engineering and many opportunities in our expanding leisure industry, was male. It shows how many barriers we have before us and the challenge we face in improving our engineering base.
	I want to reassure the House that we are fully aware of the skills gap that has occurred and of the need to develop the skills strategy that we announced in July last year. It had the central ambition that
	"employers should have the right skills to support the success of their businesses, and that individuals have the skills they need to be both employable and personally fulfilled".
	The strategy makes a real step change in the way that we approach skills by putting employers' needs for skills at centre stage, managing the supply of training, skills and qualifications so that they respond to their needs. The strategy also aims to raise demand for higher level skills, which we all recognise need to be encouraged.
	There are a number of key initiatives. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to one when he talked about the learning grid. Engineering is an applied science, as the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, described in detail. It deals with the real world, with physical objects and with making things happen. If we are to attract people into the sector they need to be able to experience engineering at first hand. That is why we need to translate a plethora of school initiatives, which seek to give some opportunities, into a coherent strategy.
	That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry resolved to address that problem and why, through chairing the Motorsport Panel, she has taken significant steps. She has agreed to make available £4 million over the next five years to give a real boost to this work—not to the plethora of small scale initiatives, but to ensure that we concentrate on a select group of companies that are judged to be the most effective. That work is led by the Engineering Technology Board. The learning grid will bring a new focus and greater impact to those activities, which in the past have been well meant but disparate, for young people.
	The sector skills councils have an important role to play in developing skills, and the council relating to the motor industry is making significant developments. There are a number of other initiatives that show the Government's earnest attempt to put flesh on the bones of a strategy that has been demanded by all sides of the House this evening. The Science and Engineering Ambassadors Scheme, which is a joint project by the DfES and DTI, provides role models who work in science and engineering, and who can show how science and engineering taught in the classroom can be applied to industry—to achieve some relevance for school and industry from people who, like the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, have played their part in the industry and can communicate the excitement of achievement that engineers enjoy.
	At this stage I should declare an interest. Both of my sons are engineers, although I fear that one of them has followed that dreaded path to which the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, referred, of being taken into management science and moving away from engineering. But my younger son works for Ford. If I have not learnt enough from noble Lords this evening about such issues, I assure them that my education will continue when he and I next meet, because he identifies areas in which we still have to make considerable progress.
	Two years ago we introduced a GCSE in engineering. I recognise that the problem is that the debate is about "education" and engineering. Education is, by definition, a protracted process. We cannot achieve results overnight when we are seeking to plant new ideas and encourage new excitement in our schools and in higher education. It will take time before the results come through. We are delivering, we recognise the step change that needs to be made in education and I am giving examples of some of the initiatives that are being taken. The specialist schools programme means that some schools will concentrate on developing technology and engineering excellence. That, too, will guarantee that within those schools there is a greater emphasis on the development of engineering qualifications.
	Reference has has also been made to modern apprenticeships. The Government are committed to them as high quality work-based options for young people. Engineering and manufacturing is the largest area for modern apprenticeships, making up around a fifth of young people on such training schemes—around 68,000. That is encouraging, but I recognise what noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Paul, have said—that it may not look too robust a figure against international comparisons. We all know how much needs to be done in such areas.
	We are also developing centres of vocational excellence between the public and private sectors, including a motorsport technician training centre at Silverstone, in conjunction with the British Racing Drivers Club, to provide trackside experience for students and contribute to the circuit's development as a centre of excellence. I cannot think of a more exciting way to bring people into that area of engineering.
	I also recognise the very important point that my noble friend Lord Paul made about careers advice. He is right in that we do need to structure into this opportunities that are presented to young people in schools. We all know that choices are made irremediably early and that is why there is great strength in broadening the base of our A-level and post-l6 studies and also in insisting that mathematics and science play a very significant part in the curriculum in order that young people have the base for making choices in engineering.
	This has been an enormously stimulating debate. It has ranged across one area of very conspicuous success, the motor sports industry. It is not just success on the track, but also in terms of the very high level technological skills and expertise that we have developed. It has ranged to the broader issues of how we extend and develop engineering as a crucial aspect of British education in over to support the standard of living which our nation has the right to expect. There is no doubt at all that we cannot expect improvements in productivity in the development of our industry and economy without that crucial base of engineering excellence.

Courts Boards Areas Order 2004

Lord Filkin: rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in moving this order I shall speak at the same time to the Courts Boards (Appointments and Procedure) Regulations 2004.
	In November 2003, the Courts Act received Royal Assent. The Act fulfilled the Government's commitment announced in July 2002, to legislate to integrate the management of the courts within a single courts agency to replace the Magistrates Courts' Committees and the Court Service in England and Wales.
	The role of the courts boards is to work in partnership with the new agency and to advise and make constructive recommendations to enable the agency to improve the services it provides. They will provide an opportunity for magistrates, judges, users of the courts and members of the local community to have a real say in the way the courts are administered. They will maintain a local focus for the delivery of court services within the new agency.
	Each courts board will work with the agency's area director, the senior court administrator for their area, and it will scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the Crown Court, county courts and magistrates' courts in the area are run. It will consider the draft business plans for the courts and review area performance against those plans throughout the year.
	The courts boards will work with the new agency from its launch in April 2005. These instruments will be brought into force from 1st June 2004. The courts boards will operate in shadow form from this October. This will allow them to consider draft business plans for the new agency. Having the boards in place in advance will ensure that they are ready to provide the level of scrutiny envisaged by the Courts Act from day one.
	Turning specifically to the draft guidance and the code of practice, the Courts Act requires the Lord Chancellor to issue guidance to further define the role of courts boards. The Government undertook in this House to make that guidance available when these regulations were debated. Copies of the draft guidance and the accompanying code of practice have been made available in the Printed Paper Office. They have benefited from the comments of key stakeholders including the Magistrates' Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts' Committees.
	The regulations have been developed following extensive consultation. The consultation paper was issued last September and its proposals were developed following regional discussion groups involving magistrates, judges, court staff and court users. Two conferences were held for the magistrates' Bench and branch chairmen. Discussions have also taken place with national representatives of the magistrates' courts and the judiciary.
	The provisions contained in the regulations and the post-consultation report, both published in February, have benefited from these views. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has seen the regulations and the order and they have been considered in another place.
	The Courts Boards Areas Order sets out the 42 courts boards areas for England and Wales. The Courts Act provides that the Lord Chancellor shall have regard for the desirability of specifying areas which are the same as the police areas under the Police Act 1996. On 31 July 2003, the Lord Chancellor announced that there would be 42 local management areas in the new agency following the Police Act boundaries and that each one would have a courts board. The new areas would be the same as the areas used by other criminal justice agencies and will be co-terminous with local authority boundaries. I very much hope that the House will welcome this for the obvious benefits it should bring.
	During debate of the areas order in another place, some inconsistencies in the way in which the 42 areas are described and defined were highlighted by the right honourable Members for Surrey Heath and for Colchester. I make it plain that the areas set out in the areas order are correct and all the courts within those 42 areas will fall within the remit of that area's courts board. However, there is not a full description of all the accurate local authorities within some of the relevant 42 areas. We will therefore bring forward amending regulations to come into force on 1 June 2004 at the same time as this order and the regulations to make that absolutely clear.
	Turning to the Courts Boards (Appointments and Procedure) Regulations 2004, these regulations make provision as to how courts boards members will be appointed and the basic procedures under which the boards will operate.
	During the passage of the Courts Act, the Government undertook to follow the code of practice on public appointments of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). That commitment is reflected in the regulations.
	The regulations provide for the Lord Chancellor to publish the qualities for which the lay and magistrate members of courts boards will be selected; and having sought the views of an OCPA trained independent assessor. This will mean that the selection criteria are open and transparent.
	The regulations provide for applicants to be assessed against the published criteria by a three member appointments advisory panel, normally comprising the area director, an independent assessor and a courts board member who will chair it. The regulations require the Lord Chancellor to consult the panel before making appointments.
	The appointment of judges to the boards will, at least initially, be from the circuit bench and will normally be a designated civil judge, designated family judge or a resident judge in the area. The pool of potential judge members is small and a proportionate appointment process has been agreed with the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Lord Chancellor will appoint judge members on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice.
	The regulations provide for the selection of a chair for each board by applying further criteria to interested lay and magistrate members, with the Minister taking a final decision. It has been agreed with the judiciary that the judge member will not chair. Assessing potential chairs against objective criteria will ensure that the chair is competent to undertake that role and provides a transparent process by which the best person is chosen.
	The regulations also set the maximum number of members at 12 and allow the boards to set their own quorum, subject to a minimum of four people. They provide that members may sit on the courts board for a maximum of three terms of three years although two terms will be the norm. They also provide for circumstances in which a member may be suspended or dismissed.
	These regulations set out an open and transparent system of appointment for courts boards members and the order sets out courts boards areas that are in line with the wishes expressed by this House during the passage of the Courts Act. I commend both orders to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 February be approved [11th report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have no comments on the Courts Boards Areas Order. It was agreed at the time that the Courts Bill was going through your Lordships' House that the initial areas would correspond with the existing police areas and with the existing magistrates' courts committee areas. That has plainly been done. Subject to the amendment to the titles of those areas being introduced, we are entirely happy with them.
	However, a point somewhat concerns me regarding the appointments and procedure regulations. Regulation 4 provides that the courts board appointments advisory panel, which advises on the appointment of the members of the courts board, shall comprise:
	"(a) . . . a person in the civil service of the state who appears to the Lord Chancellor to be appropriate for this purpose".
	As the Minister has just said, and as is also disclosed in the response paper published in February this year, it is the intention of the Government that that civil servant should be the area director. That is a matter which causes me some concern because one of the statutory duties of the courts board will be to monitor the work of the area director who is carrying out the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor in that area. It seems to me to be prima facie inappropriate that one of the three people who are responsible for making the appointments to the courts board, and, indeed, a person who because of his or her standing may well have a particular influence in the work of the appointments board, should be the person whose work is to be monitored by the courts board. I believe that there is a problem there with conflicts of interest.
	I hope that the Government, as they are going to have to introduce an amendment order anyway in relation to areas, may be prepared to reconsider that point and introduce an amending order to alter that provision. It would be less inappropriate to have an area director from another area, though even so I would prefer that the civil servant should be somebody who has no current responsibilities as an area director. Having said that, I have no concerns with other parts of these regulations, though my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has some points that he wishes to make.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I wish to make three brief points. The first concerns Regulation 5 of the Courts Boards (Appointments and Procedure) Regulations. Regulation 5 deals with appointments of members of courts boards who are not judges. Paragraph (3) states:
	"Where he is considering making an appointment, the Lord Chancellor must—
	(a) identify, and publish . . .
	(i) the qualities and abilities which in his view are likely to be the most relevant"—
	and that is perfectly clear—
	"(ii) any experience and qualifications which in his view are likely to be relevant".
	It then goes on in the following paragraph to say that,
	"(4) Before taking the steps"—
	that I have just referred to, that is, identifying and publishing those matters—
	"the Lord Chancellor must consult a person who has been trained . . . to act as an independent appointments assessor".
	Is the right and capacity of the Lord Chancellor to consult vis a vis the matters dealt with in paragraph 3 —qualities, abilities, experience and qualifications—confined to consulting someone trained "as an independent appointments assessor"? I rather think and hope not, and that, for example, on the experience criterion, which seems crucial—people with the right experience to sit on these boards—the Lord Chancellor will be free to consult whomsoever he wants. That might mean consulting people in the area for which the board will be responsible.
	My second question is in respect of paragraph 7, which states:
	"The Lord Chancellor must supply a courts board appointments advisory panel with such further information as it reasonably requires for the purpose of discharging its functions".
	My question is whether the only person whom the courts board can consult in discharging those functions is the Lord Chancellor, or whether the courts board can reach beyond the Lord Chancellor if it requires other information or advice. Again I think the answer in common sense should be "yes", but it would be helpful to have that clear.
	Finally, we have in Regulation 9 the important and necessary provision for resignation, suspension or removal of members of courts boards. One of those grounds is that a person has been charged with a criminal offence. On the face of it, if someone is charged with a criminal offence and is acquitted—let us say on the ground that it is the wrong person—it would be extremely harsh if someone was removed from a courts board, especially with the damage that would then follow to his or her public reputation. Is the Minister in a position to describe the sort of basis on which the Lord Chancellor would exercise a power to suspend, which I hope it would be?
	What I hope the Minister is free to say is that this provision would enable the Lord Chancellor to state—where there was a rather scandalous charge against a member of the courts board—that he felt on grounds of public confidence that he needed to suspend a member of the courts board until the matter was cleared up, thus leaving the person to resume his or her position if he or she was acquitted. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the way in which this power will be exercised.
	Finally on Regulation 9, will it be possible to appeal a person's removal on the grounds that he is "unfit", which is a ground for removal? Thinking of the public reputation of the person concerned, it could be extremely harsh to have no warning of why one is being removed, no chance to put one's case on the issue of unfitness, and no right of appeal once the removal has taken place. I well appreciate that we are dealing here with the Lord Chancellor, whose interests are of the most proper and sensible kind. However, I hope that the Minister will see the point that I am concerned about. If he can lend any reassurance on that, I would be grateful.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I turn first to the interesting probing question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about whether it is appropriate for an area director to sit on the panel. Clearly there are benefits in area directors being part of the process. They are the people within the administration with the best understanding of the needs of the court in their area. If that were the extent of it, I think there would be an understandable continuing concern as expressed by the noble Lord. However, there are in practice checks within the process to prevent the area director exerting undue influence.
	Area directors will not chair the panel; for the first appointments, that will usually be done by the panel member who is already a courts board member and by a person with knowledge and experience of the courts. The area director will not make the actual appointment; that will be done by the Minister. Apart from the initial appointments, a member of the courts board will sit on the interview panel for a new area director. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an independent assessor will be involved at every stage of the process to ensure that the process has been fair and open.
	I do not think that what I have said or the process debars what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, further suggested about the possibility of an alternative area director sitting in on the appointments panel. For the reasons I have given, I do not want to go as far as saying that that should be an automatic rule; I think that that might be unwise. However, there are benefits in enabling a person with local knowledge to take part in the process, which is governed by the checks that I have signalled.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the member of the courts board who sits on the appointments panel would presumably be a person with local knowledge.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that would often be the case, but perhaps not always, depending on how recently people had been appointed to the process. I will say no more on that for now, but I shall reflect on whether we need to go further in looking at those issues—without wishing to raise an expectation that we necessarily will.
	It is essentially a balance. There is benefit in having a person with responsibility for that as part of the process. I hear the worry about whether a weak person—we hope that such a person will never be appointed—might be partial and not choose people of the talent and vigour to bring the most pressure. However, I should hope that the processes I have indicated will limit that relatively remote risk.
	I turn to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the first of which was the identification of the qualities and experience of the courts boards members. As he said, the Lord Chancellor must publish the qualities and abilities, including the experience and qualifications, for courts boards members. Before doing so, he must consult an independent assessor. The question was whether the Lord Chancellor's ability to consult was confined to an assessor. The answer is "no"—which I think is the answer that the noble Lord had hoped for. It is not confined only to consulting an independent assessor. For example, we have consulted external bodies setting the criteria for the current exercise, such as the Association of Disabled Professionals and the Society of Occupational Lawyers.
	I turn to the question of dismissal. In a sense, this is a power; it is not an obligation to rigorously enforce that. One could envisage a situation in which a person had been charged and had been convicted of a criminal offence— driving without due care and attention, for example—but it was not seen to be of such moment that it would necessarily undermine confidence in that position. I am not saying that this would mean that anybody so charged and convicted would in all circumstances continue, but it is a signal that there is a discretion for the Lord Chancellor, if he thinks it appropriate, to remove a person in such circumstances. You could perhaps go to the other extreme, where a person had—this is an extreme circumstance—been charged with murder, for example, and had been acquitted on a technicality. In that circumstance, one would wish the Lord Chancellor to have the power to remove. Because, clearly, having a person in such a situation might go to an issue of public confidence in his fulfilling a function which is essentially supervising the administration of justice.
	I do not wish to speculate in detail. In short, it is a discretionary power that is with the Lord Chancellor for good reasons. Of course, there is an obligation on the person to make sure that natural justice is done to him, as well as upholding confidence in the process of the law and the functions that the courts board is intended to do.
	There is no appeal of removal, as such. The powers expressed are discretionary, and the Lord Chancellor will be required to act fairly and reasonably under the ordinary principles of public law.
	I trust there is nothing else that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised that I have omitted. I am sure he will remind me if that is so. I hope that this has addressed the issues concerned.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Boards (Appointments and Procedure) Regulations 2004

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Legal Services (Scope) Regulations 2004

Lord Filkin: rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Community Legal Service (Scope) Regulations 2004 be approved. The regulations are made under section 6(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend Schedule 2 to the Act. These regulations will remove,
	"attending an interview conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State with a view to his reaching a decision on a claim for asylum"
	from the scope of the Community Legal Service. The regulations are subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. They were debated in Committee in another place on 8 March and were agreed without opposition.
	I should explain to your Lordships why we are making these regulations. This change is part of a wider package of reforms to asylum legal aid that we first consulted on in June last year, in our "Public Consultation on Proposed Changes to Publicly Funded Immigration and Asylum Work". We proposed changes because of concern over the rising cost of asylum legal aid, which had risen from £81.3 million in 2000–01 to £174 million in 2002–03. At the same time, there was general concern about the level of control over quality, duplication and waste within the asylum legal aid system. Too many unmeritorious claims were being made and being pursued. There were, frankly, too many suppliers of insufficient quality doing the work. This had contributed to an increase in cost per case and an unsustainable level of expenditure.
	We announced our response to the consultation on 27 November 2003. We made some significant changes to our original proposals; for example, introducing variable thresholds where we had initially proposed fixed caps on the amount of time that could be spent on cases. Our new proposals on thresholds and the accreditation of suppliers and the unique client number are being introduced from April this year by changes to the Legal Services Commission's contract with suppliers and by administrative changes. The regulations that we are considering are concerned only with removing the attendance of a representative at the substantive asylum interview. Perhaps I may explain why we are doing that.
	At present, funding is available for a representative, who, in practice, is usually an agent or outdoor clerk working for a legally aided organisation representing an asylum seeker, to attend the substantive interview with the Home Office. However, as we said in our consultation paper, we believe that, in the majority of cases, attendance by the representative at those interviews is unnecessary, of no benefit to the client and, as a consequence, a waste of public funds. In reality, in most cases, the role played by the person accompanying the asylum seeker is simply that of a note-taker.
	That is confirmed in the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association's Best Practice Guide to Making an Asylum Application, which states at Chapter 7:
	"It has been accepted practice for many years that a client may have a clerk from his legal advisers present at substantive interviews with IND officials".
	At this point, perhaps I may stress that we do not propose to remove the publicly funded attendance at the interview in all cases. There are important exceptions—unaccompanied minors; applicants going through the fast-track initial decision processes; those suffering from a recognised and verifiable mental incapacity, which makes it impractical to undergo an interview without support; applicants being interviewed at a police station or under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; or applicants alleged to pose a threat to national security.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether the words "mental incapacity", which he used just now, have the same meaning as they have in statute?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, essentially we have taken the definition of the words "mental incapacity" from the draft Mental Incapacity Bill. I am sure that in a moment I shall be able to put my hand on that and shall be able to quote the exact section. Therefore, the lawyer must make a judgment within that confine.
	In all but the cases that I instanced, which we estimate are about a third of all interviews, funding for attendance by a representative at the substantive asylum interview will not be authorised. The Legal Services Commission will introduce rules to ensure that in the exceptional cases that I listed, where attendance at interview is authorised, this will be by the advisor in the case or the immigration supervisor, and not by an agent or outdoor clerk, until accreditation is introduced.
	As the regulations remove funding for the attendance of a representative at all asylum interviews, the Secretary of State will issue a direction under Section 6(8) of the Access to Justice Act for 1 April 2004 to bring these exceptions back into scope. Therefore, we are removing attendance in unnecessary cases and ensuring quality representation in the exceptional cases.
	Further, accreditation for publicly funded legal advisers will be introduced from April 2004 and will become compulsory by April 2005. This scheme will give additional assurance to the public that those unable to meet the required quality standards will have been properly excluded from providing services. Individuals who meet the standards will be able to put themselves forward as offering fully accredited services. In addition, those accredited to the top tier of the accreditation scheme will be awarded a 5 per cent uplift on normal rates because it is judged that they are offering particular value for money and a good service both to their client and to the public purse. The necessary regulation change to effect the uplift was laid before Parliament on 9 March 2004. All these changes were set out in our November announcement.
	The Legal Services Commission will continually monitor the effectiveness and success of each aspect of the reforms following its introduction and report back to my department. In particular, we shall monitor the effect of these regulations with the Home Office to ensure that the non-attendance of representatives at interview in non-exceptional cases does not reduce the level of assurance of access to justice.
	Perhaps I may give a little further clarification on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. "Mental incapacity" is defined in the Legal Services Commission new immigration contract as:
	"A person who lacks capacity in relation to a matter if, at the material time, he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in, the functioning of the mind or brain".
	That definition is taken from the draft Mental Incapacity Bill, Volume 1.
	I confirm to the House that, in my view, the regulations are compatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and I commend them to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I understand the Government to say of representation at the interview stage that in the majority of cases it is unnecessary, of no benefit to the client and a waste of public funds.
	Our position mirrors that of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in another place. Legal aid should be available to solicitors for attending interviews, provided that it is established in each case that the presence of a qualified solicitor is justified and does, indeed, occur.
	The evidence furnished by the applicant at the interview stage forms the basis on which the Secretary of State takes a decision about an asylum application. Yet it is at this stage that false impressions or misunderstandings about the applicant's conduct and motives are most likely to appear. This is especially true since interviews are not recorded, there are frequent language difficulties and statements are not read back to interviewees after they have been made. Since so many asylum decisions depend on an assessment of the asylum seeker's credibility, the presence of a qualified lawyer is often vital to ensure accuracy and procedural fairness at an interview.
	We fear that if legal aid is withdrawn, it will further undermine the already fragile basis for rational decision making at the interview stage, thus increasing the likelihood of successful appeals. Although we do not intend to vote against the order, we shall seek to amend the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill that is currently before your Lordships' House to reflect the view of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in another place to which I have already referred.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should declare an interest. My firm—at least until tomorrow—has always been a legal aid provider of immigration and asylum services.
	Sadly, when the new regime comes into effect on 1 April, we will cease to do legal aid work for the first time since I started the firm 34 years ago. That is because the present regime has become bureaucratically heavy-handed. It is implemented by conscientious staff, but none of them has first-hand appreciation of the realities and problems of the processes which currently provide a system of application by claimants.
	That is a good starting point—and a good example of the generalisation that I have just made—for pondering for a moment on the Government's repeated assertion that legal representation is not needed at what the Explanatory Note to the order correctly calls "the substantive interview".
	Many organisations have briefed Members of the House on the order, including the Refugee Legal Council, the Law Society, the Coalition Against Legal Aid Cuts, the Churches Commission for Racial Justice and, of course, ILPA, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association.
	I particularly commend the briefing by the Refugee Legal Centre, because it derives from as deep and impartial an experience of the workings of this part of our legal system as is owned by any organisation in the land. It is an extremely clear and persuasive explanation of why the passage of the order will, first, achieve both significant and important unfairness—which will blemish this country's record—and, secondly, be self-defeating in legal aid savings.
	Perhaps I may return to the issue of the substantive interview, not forgetting that that first interview is with an immigration officer who is often as inexperienced as the legal clerk attending the same. That forms the crucial factual ground upon which the decision will be taken by the senior immigration officer which, in relation to asylum, can be a real issue of life or death.
	I hope the House will excuse me referring to what the Refugee Legal Centre says as it is basic to this matter and to the central assertion that lawyers are not necessary at such interviews. It states that there are several ways in which an interview may prove inappropriate or unsafe. First, conduct on the part of the interviewer or interpreter may be deliberately or unintentionally intimidating. Secondly, the interviewer—that is the immigration officer—may fail adequately to follow up answers or explore the substance of the asylum claim. Thirdly, the interviewer may use technical terms in questions or pose very long questions that may be summarised in the record so that the technical nature or complexity is not there disclosed. One must not forget that the person being interviewed is often fearful, unaccustomed to the culture, often having to use an interpreter and very often in a state of high anxiety. Fourthly, the interpretation may be inaccurate, or otherwise inadequate, for the interviewee. Fifthly, the record made by the interviewer may be inaccurate, either because it wrongly records what was said, or it fails fully to record what was said. Sixthly, the record, even if accurate as to what was said, may fail to record or may wrongly record important aspects of demeanour of the interviewee. Finally, even where the record records some aspect of demeanour, it is nevertheless unlikely to reveal the true extent of any such behaviour and, thereby, not disclose its true implication. Those last points tie in with Clause 7 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, which introduces credibility in a way that will be extremely damaging to the claimant in the kind of interview to which the Refugee Legal Centre refers.
	Perhaps I can compare the system that will prevail after these regulations come into effect with the system that prevails for any citizen of this country, or indeed a foreigner, charged with any criminal offence—let us say a shoplifting offence. Such a person has a right for a solicitor to be present in the police station when the police take a statement. Note too that the statement taken by the police in the presence of a legal adviser will not be passed to another member of the police force for a decision but to the Crown Prosecution Service, an independent body that will reach its own decision on the evidence as to whether to prosecute. By contrast, in the asylum interview, the immigration officer will pass his or her statement to a person further up the line in the same organisation. So there is no separation or Chinese wall that will ensure due impartiality.
	In the criminal process, if the Crown Prosecution Service decides to prosecute, the matter goes to a magistrates' court. There the accused will have the opportunity to give afresh his or her evidence in open court, subject to cross-examination. By contrast, in an asylum case the statement will pass from one immigration officer to a senior immigration officer who, without any further contact with the claimant, has to make a decision.
	One needs only to look at the radically different treatment of comparable situations to see why so many people outside this House are deeply anxious about the consequences. I say "comparable situations" because although one is a criminal process and the other is plainly not, the consequences for the person seeking asylum, if he or she has his or her case rejected at that stage, are potentially devastating.
	I shall briefly refer to what I described as the self-defeating effect of this order in terms of cost. Two things will follow. First, the number of appeals that will be made in the future is bound to increase radically. A solicitor to whom the claimant goes, the first substantive interview having taken place, is bound to say to the client—as he or she will then be if he or she has not already been deported—"I wasn't at the interview. No one from my office was at the interview. Now that I explain to you what the statement says you are not satisfied that this reflects fairly either what you said or your case. We must appeal". The cost of that is likely to be very serious.
	The second cost is of the appeal itself. The asylum and immigration tribunal, as it will be called, will not be dealing with a statement where someone has represented the claimant at the substantive interview and was able to help make it a true, accurate and full statement—there is no point in a representative being present unless it is to hone that statement into an acceptable form. Instead we shall be presented with a situation where at every turn that substantive statement will be challenged. There is going to be argument about what it meant—what the claimant now means or says. I do not think that one needs to be a lawyer to understand the consequences of that. It will mean an extreme extension of time for the hearing of these appeals.
	At the moment it is proposed that the new tribunals should handle four cases per day. My bet is that it will be three or even two hearings a day if they are going to be extended and complicated because there is no remotely agreed statement on which the appeal is proceeding. So, in terms of cost, these proposals seem to us to be counter-productive.
	I was most grateful to have a meeting with the Minister, David Lammy, and his officials where some of these matters were discussed. However, I am bound to say that one of the impediments to reaching an agreed forward path—no one is trying to score points off anyone; we all seek to deal with an extremely difficult problem in the way that best serves the public interest and justice—is that the Government say, and go on saying, "But the representatives at these substantive interviews are useless. They are a waste of time and money". There is some truth in that.
	However, I must make two points. First, by failing to increase the rates of legal aid remuneration year after year, the firms dealing with these cases cannot afford to send experienced people to the interviews. There is no doubt about that. Secondly, the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand convict the legal profession of failing to provide quality services while failing to provide for those services. So, whichever way we go, there must be more sense on that front. I believe that if this order proceeds there will be serious injustice. There will be serious costs by way of appeal and the length of those appeals. There will be judicial review cases, and there will be a considerable blot on our escutcheon as regards the standards that we all seek to maintain in dealing with what, after all, is a singularly vulnerable group of people. It is no good for the Government to say that there are a lot of shysters among this lot who are swinging the lead, telling a pack of lies and just trying to get away with it. No doubt there are, but we must come up with a system that gives justice to the honest claimant. We cannot set our sights according to those who abuse the system. We need to deal with the abusers, but in the process we must not damage the justice due to the genuine claimant.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that it can be argued that the asylum entrance interview is the most important interview in English law. Since I had the very great pleasure of assisting Lord Williams of Mostyn, speaking in his private capacity, in amending the Human Rights Bill to incorporate the protocol prohibiting the death penalty, no purely domestic legal proceeding has threatened life. If a genuine asylum seeker is returned to the country from which he came, his life is threatened.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Phillips. It is curious that this should be the only instance that does not attract legal help. The Government says in the Explanatory Memorandum:
	"The Government believes that in the majority of cases this is unnecessary, of no benefit to the client and a waste of public funds".
	I listened with some interest to see what reasons the Minister had for that belief. If he has any more than he has given us, I would be glad to hear them.
	He had two things to say, as I understand it. First, that there were some suppliers of inferior quality, that is to say that there are some bad lawyers. Measures have been taken about that, which is one of the few things in this field on which we and the Government have wholeheartedly co-operated. I also remember in this Chamber a group of eminent QCs conducting a Dutch auction about what a hash they had made of their first case, how little they had been paid, and how awful the consequences were for the client. It was won by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said, "I got seven and sixpence, and my client got seven years". The Government's principle does a little too much. It is an argument against having any lawyers anywhere. From Jack Cade onwards, there have been those who have wanted that. I do not think that this House is among them.
	Secondly, the Government also said that they give aid to unmeritorious persons. That is simply another way of saying that the Minister does not agree with all their decisions. In fact, it is saying, like Mr Bumble, that,
	"The law is a ass".
	It did not do Mr Bumble any good, and it will not do Mr Blunkett any more good.
	We all agree that the weakest point in the whole system of asylum is the poor quality of initial decisions. That is why cases take so long, why there are so many appeals, and why there are so many judicial reviews. Would it not make sense to try to improve the first stage of initial decision? The Government are always introducing measures designed to induce haste, which have the opposite effect. They remind me of a former neighbour of mine, who was once in a hurry to open the wine for dinner, but he could not find his corkscrew. Being an old cavalry officer, he slashed the bottles open with his old sword, and then had to strain it through muslin to get the glass out. It took a lot longer than it would have done otherwise. That is a fair parallel for the Government's asylum policy.
	There are plenty of examples of this. I remember one of the Campsfield Nine, whose case had been through umpteen stages of proceedings, until Lord Williams of Mostyn and I finally got together on it. It instantly appeared that the man's claim was genuine and should be allowed. This was after about nine months of proceedings and a day or two before he had been about to be sent back to West Africa. That is far too common a story.
	There are far too many cases where it depends on the use of a wrong dialect or an inaccurate opinion about the country concerned—like the belief that the Roma were not persecuted in society at precisely the moment that the Foreign Office was advising that they could not be admitted to the EU because it did persecute the Roma.
	The Minister says that there are exceptions. I have always been puzzled, especially as a boy, by the proverb that the exception proves the rule. However, the full proverb makes a great deal more sense. "Proves" is used in the sense of test. The full proverb is that the exception proves the rule in those things which are not excepted. Should I grant my noble friend Lord Addington all my trees, I would be held to have excluded my orchard. But should I grant him all my trees except my pear tree, I would be held to have included my apple trees. Therefore, let us look at what is not in the Government's list of exceptions.
	There is no mention of victims of rape or victims of torture although we all know how difficult it is to get them to tell their story. There is mental incapacity but not severe illness. I think of one case personally known to me who arrived in an open canvas lorry with a temperature which was found, once she had made her claim, to be 106. I do not think that she was in a fit state to tell her story. Another claimant personally known to me, who saw her grandparents shot dead in her sight, did not speak of anything for three months. I do not think that she was fit to tell her story. She is not included in the list of exceptions either.
	There is no inclusion of the case which is distressingly common of raping the wife in the sight of the husband. I could go on. I shall not. There are plenty more of these cases. The exceptions are not particularly generously construed. So if the exception proves the rule, it does not prove very much.
	All of these things are liable to create further judicial proceedings. I do not know whether the initial asylum claim could be held to be a judicial proceeding but I ask the Minister this. Has he taken advice on whether the absence of a right to legal representation might possibly engage ECHR Article 6 on the right to a fair trial? It is a question I raise tentatively but I should rather like to know the answer.
	As regards the prosecutor interviewer, I have in my papers one case from an interviewer in Gatwick where the interviewer referred sneeringly, sarcastically, to every mention of a case where someone had tried to shoot the applicant. The Home Office held the claim not to be genuine but it was overset on appeal and ultimately the person was allowed in. That is just the sort of case in which the Home Office's attitude to the initial claimant ends with taking a great deal more time and letting the person in at the end.
	We have a case here also of a Kurdish hunger striker who was barely fit to speak. The record was totally incoherent. He was rejected also. He was ultimately accepted on appeal. When any government get desperately frightened of something, they always end up doing things which make that particular thing work. This is not an exception.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, as my noble friend has just said, the exceptions do not cover many categories of people such as torture victims and victims of rape, whose cases have been reported in shocking detail by many of the practitioners who have written to us prior to this debate. Even with the categories that have been mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, worsened my fears when he gave the definition of mental incapacity. That is an extremely severe test. Has the noble Lord consulted any of the mental health organisations about whether people who do not come within the definition of mental incapacity but do suffer from mental illness are capable of giving the right sort of answers or making the right sort of statement on their own behalf at the crucial ordeal of the first statement?
	It has been agreed on all sides, particularly in the debates on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, that the initial decision-making process is seriously defective. That is the main reason why thousands of decisions are reversed by the appellate authorities. Is it not perverse, therefore, to make it even more likely that uncorrected errors will be made at the first interview, increasing the number of decisions, as my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has explained, which have to be corrected higher up and at much greater cost than the savings achieved by the order? Even if serious procedural mistakes were not being made at the interview stage—we have many dozens of examples to show that there are—the absence of representation could lead to a lowering of standards for those who do not come within the exceptions mentioned.
	I take it that we are all agreed that full disclosure at the earliest possible stage is in the interest of the applicant, the Home Office and the public. The presence of the representative, even though he may not be legally qualified, gives the timid applicant the confidence to speak freely. That seems to have been acknowledged by the Home Office; it announced at a recent stakeholders' meeting that certain vulnerable individuals—I take it that that means people who are not covered by the exceptions—would be allowed to have a friend or relative present at the interview. Would the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, care to say anything about this in his reply? Will he deal with the awkward questions that, to my mind, it raises about confidentiality and about reducing the applicant's willingness to make full disclosure—for example, where she does not want the friend or relative to know that she has been a victim of rape or torture?
	As both my noble friends have said, it is in the nature of the asylum process that the interview is of peculiar significance. Unlike in criminal cases, it is almost always the only direct evidence of the case to be proved—the rest is all background information about the situation in the country of origin and about the experience of other people who belong to the same group as the applicant, as checks on the credibility of her story. In asylum cases, moreover, the interviewer, as my noble friend Lord Phillips, explained, represents the authority that investigates, decides on, and, in appeal proceedings, will be the opponent of the case made out at interview.
	Because of the vulnerability of the asylum seeker and her unfamiliarity with the process, she will not necessarily be able to identify inappropriate conduct on the part of the interviewer or interpreter which an experienced representative would pick up at once. My noble friend went into some detail on the excellent note that we all had from the Refugee Legal Centre.
	None of the flaws which occur at the interview stage can be satisfactorily addressed unless the applicant is represented at the interview. Many of them, such as errors of interpretation and errors in the record are beyond the applicant's knowledge in the very nature of things. When the written record comes to her attention, she will not necessarily be able to pick up the fact that a particular error in interpretation has been made. Yet the interview, which is already a crucial element in the initial decision-making process, is about to be given even greater weight because the Bill before your Lordships provides that the applicant's "behaviour" may be taken as giving an adverse indication of her credibility.
	Such "behaviour" may include her conduct or demeanour at interview and, as my noble friend explained, if there were questions about that later on, it might lead to the representative undertaking careful inquiry about any such matters that might be relevant to the decision. As of now, that would be unnecessary, because the representative is present at the interview; but after the Bill comes into effect, the time needed to cover those matters properly might be equal to, or even greater than, the time it would have taken to be present at the interview.
	The importance of the interview record means that there is likely to be more litigation concerning the record or the conduct of the interview. My noble friend Lord Phillips has already explained that. In some cases, that might even possibly lead to judicial review challenges to the interview itself—but routinely, the extension of the litigation of the interview process in the course of any appeal. The consequent increase in cost is likely to be compounded by the fact that removing the representative from the interview lessens the incentive for the interviewer and interpreter to ensure that it is conducted fairly. In some cases, that may lead to abuse and, in others, it may encourage or allow the interviewer or interpreter to be less scrupulous than he would otherwise be in observing principles of fairness. In addition to the necessity of exploring these matters in appeals, there may be administrative delays while arguments about what actually happened at interviews are explored—in some cases, leading to new interviews.
	I want to ask the Minister whether he has considered what was said in another place about the use of tape-recording for interviews. He may remember that, when we debated the 2002 Bill, I moved an amendment for that purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
	"The current system works reasonably well and there are fairly good and accurate records of interviews".
	But he also said, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who asked him about first interviews that,
	"it might have some greater potential benefit in those kinds of cases".—[Official Report, 15/7/02; col. 1072.]
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the Home Office concluded, however, that with the existing safeguards, and particularly the presence of a representative, tape-recording was unnecessary. Now that there is not going to be a representative, the case for tape-recording becomes overwhelming.
	If all interviews were recorded, something like 12 million interviews would have been involved; but at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was speaking, there were some 76,000—and, of course, the number would be much smaller in 2004. Will the Government take another look at the idea so as to provide an accurate record, in cases when any dispute arises, and ensure that it would not simply be a case of the applicant's word against that of Home Office officials? Mr David Lammy was asked to consider the matter in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, but he dismissed it on the grounds that it would be unusual in civil rather than criminal proceedings. When pressed by Mr Dominic Grieve, he replied:
	"I have said what I want to say to the hon. Gentleman on that point".—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Standing Committee, 8/3/04; col. 8.]
	That closed the discussion.
	I also want to ask the Minister how, when there is doubt about the applicant falling within one or other of the exceptions, the matter is to be resolved. Let us suppose, for example, that there is some doubt as to whether a person claiming to be 17 years old is in fact that age, or whether he has reached the age of majority. Would the only safe course of action not be to say that where the applicant claims to belong to one of the exempted categories, representation will be allowed so as to avoid argument on the matter later at appeal stage?
	The Home Office are trying to discourage asylum seekers from seeking legal advice at any time and, in the DVD that is going to be used for briefing those asylum seekers at the start of the process, it is emphasising that representation is not really necessary at all and that the initial interview is the only chance that the applicant has to tell the officials about his case. If he has forgotten something, or is advised later on that something he omitted is relevant, is that to be ignored?
	In case number 8—to which I drew the Minister's attention—cited by the Coalition Against Legal Aid Cuts, the immigration authorities agreed to consider a full statement prepared with the advice of a solicitor following many complaints about the conduct of the interview. In that case, if there had been no representative at the interview, the applicant would probably not have complained, or if he had done so, he would not have been able to substantiate the complaint with independent corroboration.
	This proposal in this order is based on the notion, as the Minister has explained, that the presence of a representative at the initial interview is unnecessary, of no benefit to the client, and a waste of money. The overwhelming majority of practitioners disagree with the noble Lord. I remind him that most of them are not in it for the money. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has explained, he and many other practitioners are leaving because they cannot give their clients the service that they need. Practitioners have sent us many examples of the benefits of representation at this stage and of how the errors that they pick up can actually save money later on. We believe that these proposals will lead to injustice and to further delays and expense at the appeal stage.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise very briefly to say first of all that I fully concur with what my noble friends have said. I do not think it is necessary for me to add to that because they have said everything that could possibly be said. A very powerful case has been made.
	I would draw attention to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury about tape recordings. That is something that is not inconsistent with this order. Indeed, it is something that I think is made necessary by this order. I hope that the Government will be prepared to give consideration to tape recording all interviews and providing copies of the tape to asylum seekers. It is quite clear that in the absence of a tape it will be very difficult indeed, and in many cases impossible, to challenge misunderstandings, unfair or inadequate procedure, or the accuracy of the note taken on behalf of the interviewer.
	We have reluctantly decided not to challenge the making of this order, but like the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, we will seek to amend the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill now before your Lordships' House in order to reverse the effect of this order.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I rise to address the questions raised by both Opposition Benches. If I do not cover them all, I shall drop a line to noble Lords setting out further thoughts on the questions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, set out the challenge which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, echoed, seeking to change the Bill that we will consider on a subsequent occasion, to make available, if justified, qualified lawyers, at the initial interview. That is exactly what the Government believe that this order does. Where there is a representative in the exceptional cases, which are about a third of all cases, he will be a qualified person, rather than unqualified. The debate will therefore turn on when it is justified. We will perhaps leave that to a later date.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and I am sorry to interrupt at the beginning of his speech, but will he accept that the exceptions that the Government are providing for in the order do not cover the classes of case that my noble friend has enunciated: torture, rape and a myriad others.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, with the greatest of courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, if he will give me a little space I shall do my best to address all of the issues that have been raised. Please do not assume that when I have not covered them all in the first 30 seconds, I shall not do so. Please come to your feet, as I am sure that you will, at the end on those that I have forgotten, which I am bound to do.
	The first point, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is that written evidence submitted by the applicant for refuge, which is a fundamentally important part of the process and is submitted to the Home Office official, usually benefits from specialist legal advice that is funded under the system and will continue to be. So the submission of the case as to why asylum should be granted will benefit from that advice.
	Secondly, the applicant will be given a copy of the transcript at the end of the interview. He will have what the caseworker recorded. Therefore, he is in a position to take it away and to discuss it with his adviser and, if he feels it appropriate, to raise a challenge on that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, argued that the presence of a qualified lawyer was vital for justice to be done. I do not wish to engage at length with the noble Lord on this matter, but that is not the present situation. It is not happening now and I do believe that we have seen evidence that it has led to injustice.
	The case for an increase in successful appeals has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and others. It has been considered as part of these measures. We would be foolish if we believed that that was the case, partly because there is already a high proportion of appeals against decisions and therefore an appeal process is engaged. Clearly, a person who is appealing is not doing so twice through the same process. However, I have said, and I repeat, that it is important for the system to be monitored closely to see how it works in practice, because governments can make what they believe to be wise prospective moves, but they have to be tested in practice to see how they operate.
	There are very few formal complaints against the initial interview. I must emphasise that even after the changes are implemented we will have a system of legal aid and advice to asylum applicants that is greater than that operated by the vast majority of other European countries under ECHR. That does not mean that we are perfect, but it does not mean that there is a self-evident case that we are failing in our responsibilities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that the Legal Services Commission has no front line experience. The nationality, immigration and asylum team that oversees the system is staffed and led mainly by immigration lawyers recruited from firms. So the noble Lord's assertion was somewhat harsh.
	It is difficult for me to comment on the briefing by the Refugee Legal Centre, because I have not seen it. It would do me good to read it and I will ask officials to see whether we can trace a copy. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the first interview with an immigration officer is a crucial factual ground. It is fundamentally important to have the facts of the applicant's case clearly set out and established as early as possible in the process. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may have made a similar point. I totally agree with him on that and it is what a skilled interviewer seeks to do.
	I have just been given the Refugee Legal Centre's advice to read, but I shall resist that temptation as it might delay the House.
	I was saying that it is important to set out the facts of a case as early as possible so that the evidence of the case is there and considered. I have partly touched on the written representations that have already been submitted by an applicant as part of that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, gave a list—conduct, failure to follow up the use of technical terms, interpretation, inaccuracy of the record, failure to record demeanour—of reasons why there was concern that the process might be at risk or flawed. I would not argue that there will automatically be no risk at all. There is risk in any system, but one would expect that a person who had undergone an interview with a Home Office official would be asked by their adviser whether they felt that the process had been fair, whether they felt that they had been listened to, and whether they felt that they had been given the opportunity to express their evidence. If they felt that the process was flawed a complaint could be made; or if they felt that there was evidence that had not been accurately reflected in the note, there would be an opportunity for further submissions or representations to be made.
	It has been argued that it is not comparable to a criminal procedure and that is true. But it is not a criminal procedure. I do not expect this to be welcomed, but I suggest that the system we are proposing is better than the status quo. Under the current system, as I believe has been accepted, in most cases one has present an unqualified person, a legal clerk. Under the system that we are introducing by this regulation, in the cases where it most matters, there will be a qualified lawyer present who has qualifications and skills in asylum matters. That is reinforced by the fact that we are bringing in an accreditation scheme which will ensure that we have qualified legal practitioners. I believe that there is a general welcome for that provision throughout the House.
	Clearly, if as a consequence of the process the applicant or the adviser believes that the claim has not been given proper consideration or the outcome or the decision is inappropriate, there is the right of appeal. I have touched on the argument about it being self-defeating on costs because of more appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, signalled that the appeals themselves might be longer if there was a substantial amount of debate about the accuracy of the statement. That is one of the issues we should bear in mind and monitor as we see how it works out. If the noble Lord is right, that will be a cause for concern.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. How does he envisage that the monitoring will take place?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, both the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Home Office have a joint interest in the monitoring process. I envisage that it will be active monitoring from the beginning of the process. One would expect any system of monitoring to try to identify what were the criteria of a system working well or poorly. One would have to have some explicit criteria for evaluating any scheme which would include any increase in complaints against the interview, an increase in appeals as a consequence or an increase in disputes at appeal stage. That was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Those would be some of the criteria, but there would be others.
	I would expect such a system to have explicit criteria. There should be a process of gathering evidence, either by sample or spot checks, over a period of time so that informed judgments could be made as to whether it was working. That would be necessary to have an effective monitoring system.

Earl Russell: My Lords, in judging the system by the presence or absence of complaint, is the Minister making adequate allowance for the overwhelming pressure on the applicant to please the people on whom the whole of his future rests?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, no. I shall never take the view that any public service function can be judged simply by whether there are complaints, for self-evident reasons. That is one of the criteria that one should look at, and there are others. I was seeking to sketch some of the criteria which I believe would be relevant, and there will be others.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, used the term "shysters". I am not sure that I can spell it, but I know exactly what he means. We are optimistic that those legal representatives or firms who did not appear to uphold good standards of practice in this crucially important area of law, advice and practice will be removed by the process of accreditation. I believe we have taken appropriate steps. I believe that has been well recognised and welcomed by most specialists in the field as it is important that there are high quality legal advisers. Bad quality legal advisers discredit the system, which is against the interests of the applicant as well.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right to remind us that genuine asylum seekers risk life if they are returned to a place where they are at genuine risk. That is why we have to be thoughtful and conscious of the interests of justice and that there are adequate appeal processes.
	I do not believe that it is on that issue that we shall see injustices significantly hinge for the following reason. As the House knows, the role of the unqualified clerk in these interviews is essentially a silent and a passive one. He is not an active participant in the process. He sits there, listens and perhaps makes notes. He does not actively intervene.
	I turn to the issue of poor quality initial decisions. It is undoubtedly correct that IND has recognised the importance of improving the quality of its initial decisions. Much work has been done on that in the past two years. The significant reduction in the number of applicants coming into the country for asylum also gives them greater scope to concentrate on raising the quality of decisions and ensuring that the quality of staff carrying out interviews and taking initial decisions is as high as we would expect.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on wrong advice. Clearly there have been occasions when, certainly with the benefit of hindsight, one has seen a lag between advice catching up with reality. If I recollect correctly, some of the measures that were put in place under the 2002 Act concerning independent country advice processes are intended to try to ensure that such situations are utterly exceptional.
	Comments were made about the level of exceptions. That is one of the issues that will need to be kept under review. What one is asking applicants to do is, essentially, to tell their story. One is asking no more than that. One is asking them to tell what happened to them, why they consider it is unsafe for them to be in the country from which they came and why they are at risk. That is essentially what a good interviewer does. He or she does not try to catch them out but to hear their story and then, by further probing, to see whether the veracity of the story can be tested and whether it constitutes a well made case. An interviewer who seeks not to put an applicant at ease and seeks to make it difficult for him or her to debate their case, is clearly a bad interviewer. One would hope that the quality assurance processes in IND would increasingly weed out any such interviewers.
	Where a client is suffering mental incapacity as a result of torture, interview attendants will be permitted under the arrangements that we have discussed. I can perhaps go slightly further on that point. I have not pleased the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, by what I have said on that but essentially the judgment on mental incapacity will be made in practice by the solicitor who is interviewing the person. He or she will clearly have a professional obligation to exercise that judgment in accordance with the regulations but nevertheless they have the freedom to make that decision themselves and therefore to make an application for exception on that count.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I asked the Minister to tell the House whether he had taken any advice from the organisations concerned with mental health on the threshold which has to be attained before someone falls into the exception category.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that that matter is covered in my rather extensive pile of briefing notes. However, I turn to it now. We certainly consulted a whole range of organisations, including mental health organisations, about the general changes to the process. We have not consulted specialist mental health organisations on the specific definition of "mental incapacity", which I believe was the question that the noble Lord asked.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about Article 6.1 of ECHR. As I said in my opening remarks, we have taken advice and I made the statement that we are compliant with ECHR. I could say more but I think that it would be more helpful to write to the noble Earl giving further detail rather than ad libbing at this point in time.
	A number of noble Lords touched on the issue of people who are particularly vulnerable; for example, victims of torture, illiterate applicants, traumatised victims and mentally disturbed applicants. The IND guidance on interviewees requires particular care to be taken in those circumstances and is explicit in that respect. It sets out how the interviewer has a duty to try to work to ensure that they are put at ease. Again, because time is limited, I will be pleased to write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, setting out what is expected of interviewers in those respects as part of their casework guidance and training.
	On the issue of whether criminal interviewees get legal aid, the asylum interview is a civil fact-finding interview and the representative—normally a clerk—is not able to play the same role as in a criminal interview. The representative can still make representations after the interview if issues arise or are thought to have arisen in the process.
	As regards tape-recording—again I think that point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, correct me if I am wrong—the noble Lord is right. It was last costed, I think, in 1999 when it was estimated at about £8 million, plus running costs of £1.2 million. I would have to check what the level of asylum intake was at that point, because I think we have probably gone up from then and then down. I do not know whether we are at the same point as we were in 1999, but I am certain that I can give the noble Lord a rough figure as to whether we are still in the same ball park on costs.
	The further point as to why we do not believe tape-recording would be desirable or necessary is that a written transcript still needs to be produced. The processes of recording, translating and transcribing would delay the decision-making process. I studied that in 1998 and the evidence of a feasibility study suggested that some asylum applicants were less willing to participate when an interview was tape-recorded, leading to a rise in non-compliance refusals. I share with the House what we know of that process. Nevertheless, I will do a further note on that so that we touch on some of those costing points in that respect.
	On the question of who decides which category if any applies as an exception, the lawyer will make the decision. Lawyers operate under codes of practice; they will be expected to make that decision in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, I think that gives some measure of discretion in this instance in perhaps the way that would have been hoped, so that one is not driving a cruelly hard dividing line.
	I have touched on the different view of a number of appeals, but again I will signal that we need to monitor that. It is important that we make two matters clear. First, that we are convinced, for the reasons that I set out, that this is a necessary and reasonable step which will not compromise justice. But, secondly, that we will look at the points that have been made in this debate and try to ensure that they inform the monitoring that I have affirmed, because these are issues of justice, issues of importance, and we have to try to do two things at once: to make effective use of public money so as not have a wasteful asylum process, but also to try to ensure that justice is done to asylum applicants in our society. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.